IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0736

Filed July 18, 2018

ADAM C. GILSON,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J. Finn, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals the district court’s dismissal of his postconviction relief 

action. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, L.L.P., West Des Moines, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee State.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, Judge.

Adam Gilson appeals the district court’s dismissal of his postconviction relief 

action. Gilson claims postconviction counsel was ineffective for failing to amend 

Gilson’s pro se brief to add details, facts, and arguments of law. We reverse the 

district court’s decision and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Gilson pleaded guilty to a drug-tax-stamp violation and third-degree theft. 

A sentencing hearing was held on June 10, 2013, and Gilson was given a 

suspended sentence not to exceed five years for the drug-tax-stamp violation and 

two years for theft, to run consecutively. Gilson was next convicted in federal court

of being a felon in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to prison on May 22, 

2014. Gilson then stipulated to violating the conditions of his Iowa probation, which 

was revoked, resulting in the original sentence being imposed consecutively to his

federal prison sentence.

On November 4, 2016, Gilson filed a pro se application for postconviction 

relief, in which he alleged “There exists evidence of material facts, not previously 

presented and heard, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the 

interests of justice.” Gilson provided no indication of what those facts were, no 

caselaw or argument to support his position, and no requested relief. Counsel was 

appointed to represent Gilson on December 7, 2016, but the pro se motion was 

not amended to add facts, argument, or case law.

On February 17, 2017, the State filed a motion for summary disposition 

under Iowa Code section 822.6 (2016), claiming Gilson “has failed to state any 

specific facts in his pleading to support the checkbox boilerplate allegation.” At the 
3

hearing on the motion, held on April 20, 2017, Gilson testified he tried to be 

extradited to Iowa to complete his Iowa sentence but his request was denied. He 

stated he believed he should receive credit on his Iowa sentence for the time spent 

in federal prison. The State objected on the ground it had not received notice of 

the issues Gilson intended to raise at the hearing.

The district court granted the State’s motion for summary disposition, finding 

Gilson had been properly released to federal authorities. The court also stated, 

“The State also objects to the fact that none of these issues were raised by the 

Applicant prior to the actual hearing and as such there is no basis for granting the 

postconviction-relief application.” The court then concluded, “For the foregoing 

reasons, the State’s Motion for Summary Judgment is sustained and the 

Applicant’s Postconviction Relief application is dismissed with prejudice.” Gilson 

appeals, claiming he received ineffective assistance from postconviction counsel.

II. Standard of Review

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are reviewed de novo. Ledezma 

v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). “To prevail on a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, the [defendant] must demonstrate both ineffective 

assistance and prejudice.” Id. at 142. “If the claim lacks prejudice, it can be 

decided on that ground alone without deciding whether the attorney performed 

deficiently.” Id. Both elements must be proved by a preponderance of the 

evidence. Jones v. State, 479 N.W.2d 265, 272 (Iowa 1991).

III. Discussion

Gilson claims he received ineffective assistance because postconviction 

counsel failed to amend his application to add details, facts, and legal arguments. 
4

He states if the proper arguments had been made, the court would not have 

dismissed his application for postconviction relief. He requests reversal of the 

summary disposition of his action and to have his case reinstated.

The Iowa Supreme Court recently addressed the dismissal of an application 

for postconviction relief on the ground the application was “too vague.” Allison v. 

State, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2018 WL 3198793, at *23 (Iowa 2018). The court 

found, “A motion to dismiss should be granted only when there is no conceivable 

state of facts that might support the claim for relief.” Id. at *24. The court also 

stated, “If the State believes the allegations in a PCR petition are not sufficiently 

precise to allow it to file an answer, the State may file a motion for a more specific 

statement.” Id. (citing Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.433). The court reversed the dismissal of 

the application for postconviction relief and remanded for further proceedings. Id.

Based on Allison, we determine the district court improperly granted the 

State’s motion for summary disposition of Gilson’s application for postconviction 

relief. See id. If the State believes Gilson’s claims in his application are “too 

vague,” the State should file a motion for a more specific statement. See id. We 

conclude the district court’s decision should be reversed and the case remanded 

for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.