from the Iowa District Court for Story County, James C.
Risdal appeals the order dismissing his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
M. Wadding of Kemp & Sease, Des Moines, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
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.
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].
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
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
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 ...