from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Chad A.
Jason appeals the district court's denial of his two
applications for postconviction relief.
M. Van Daele of Van Daele Law, LLC, North Liberty, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., May, J., and Mahan, S.J.
2007, Daniel Jason was convicted of simple assault and three
counts of harassment concerning his unwanted actions toward
his former girlfriend, C.C. A previously-entered no-contact
order was extended for five years. "Contrary to
Jason's declaration at [the] sentencing hearing that he
would never contact [C.C.] again," he contacted her just
hours after his release from jail. See State v.
Jason, No. 14-1162, 2015 WL 6510334, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. Oct. 28, 2015) (hereinafter Jason II).
conduct toward C.C. persisted. In 2007, he was convicted by a
jury of stalking in violation of a no-contact order and
tampering with a witness. On direct appeal, this court
affirmed his convictions but ordered a limited remand to
apply Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164,
177-78 (2008), to determine whether Jason "was competent
to stand trial, but not competent to take on the expanded
role of representing himself at trial." State
v. Jason, 779 N.W.2d 66, 75-76 (Iowa Ct. App.
2009). The court also ordered resentencing,
finding the district court "did not provide any reasons
for its decision to impose consecutive sentences."
Id. at 77.
remand, following a "meaningful hearing," the
district court concluded Jason was competent to represent
himself at trial. Meanwhile, separate from the hearing and
court's decision, the parties stipulated Jason was
competent to represent himself at trial and that his
sentences should run concurrently. The court imposed
his release from prison in 2012, Jason resumed contact with
C.C. despite the no-contact order still in effect,
"starting her ordeal all over again." Jason
II, 2015 WL 6510334, at *2. In 2014, following a bench
trial, Jason was convicted of stalking in violation of a
no-contact order and two counts of extortion, enhanced as an
habitual offender. On direct appeal, this court affirmed his
convictions. See id. at *14.
filed two postconviction-relief (PCR) applications: in 2011,
he filed PCCV073198, challenging his 2007 convictions and
2010 sentence (a prerequisite for his subsequent
habitual-offender enhancements); and in 2015, he filed
PCCV077747, challenging his 2014 convictions. The two
applications were consolidated, and a trial took place over
two days in 2017. Thereafter, the district court entered a
ruling denying Jason's applications.
appeal,  Jason contends his trial counsel in 2010
was ineffective in failing to challenge his competency to
represent himself at his 2007 trial; his trial counsel in
2014 was ineffective in allowing him to waive a jury trial,
failing to object at sentencing when the State introduced a
risk-assessment report, failing to demand a "guilty-plea
like colloquy" before he stipulated to the issue of
identity during the "habitual-offender phase,"
failing to renew his motion for new trial "upon learning
of the court's impartial bias," failing to challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence to prove extortion, and
failing to advise him to accept a plea offer. He also asserts
this court applied the wrong standard in evaluating his
challenge to the denial of his motions for recusal in
Jason II, 2015 WL 6510334, at *6-7. In a pro se
brief, Jason contends his PCR counsel was ineffective in
failing to "raise ineffective appellate counsel
claims" regarding the district court's refusal to
let him represent himself at his 2014 trial.
de novo review,  we agree with the district court's
well-reasoned findings and conclusions in its thorough and
detailed ruling. With the exception of Jason's pro se
claim regarding PCR counsel,  the court considered each of the
issues raised in this appeal and provided a thorough and
meaningful analysis of each issue. We agree with the ruling