Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Risdal v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 6, 2019

EDDIE CHARLES RISDAL, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C. Ellefson, Judge.

         Eddie Risdal appeals the order dismissing his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

          Scott M. Wadding of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.

          Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.

          DOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         Eddie Risdal appeals from the district court's dismissal of his application for postconviction relief (PCR). Risdal did not file his application within the three-year statute of limitations as provided in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2017). He contends the statute-of-limitations bar does not apply because of newly discovered evidence. We affirm the decision of the district court.

         In February 1986, Risdal was tried and convicted of one count of second-degree sexual abuse and one count of third-degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.3 and 709.4 (1985). The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed his convictions in April 1987. State v. Risdal, 404 N.W.2d 130, 134 (Iowa 1987). Risdal filed an application for PCR on September 12, 2017, alleging that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront his victims during his criminal trial. Specifically, he alleged:

The prosecutor denied Risdal his right to confront the two victims of 11776 and 11777 prior jury trial.
Also during the jury trial the prosecutor testified that Risdal had 60 some other victims. Again Risdal was denied his right to confront the 60 some victims. [spelling corrected].

         The State moved for summary disposition, contending Risdal's application was barred by the statute of limitations under section 822.3. After a hearing on the application, the district court granted the State's motion, finding:

This post-conviction relief case came before the court on October 30, 2017, for hearing on the State's Motion to Dismiss. Assistant Story County Attorney Shean Fletchall appeared on behalf of the State. The applicant did not appear.
When this motion was set for hearing on October 19, 2017, the set-down order provided that the applicant should provide his telephone number to the court to permit him to participate in the hearing. The applicant has failed to provide his telephone number.
The court acknowledges that dismissal is a severe remedy. In preparing to hear the motion, and anticipating the requests by the parties that the court take judicial notice of the underlying convictions in FECR011276 and FECR011277, the court has learned the applicant was convicted over thirty years ago, in early 1986. His allegation that he discovered the basis for his postconviction relief case on August 29, 2017, is so unlikely that the court considers ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.