Opinion ID: 1253639
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutional Error Issue.

Text: We turn first to the constitutional errors that Polly, in his postconviction application, alleges infected his plea and sentencing hearings. Our analysis starts with the general rule that: A postconviction proceeding is not an avenue for litigating issues that were not properly preserved for our review on direct appeal. Granted, failure to preserve error may be so egregious that it denies a defendant the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. [This postconviction applicant] does not present such a claim. We will not ordinarily allow a defendant to claim in postconviction proceedings that the trial court erred on issues that were not properly presented for our review on direct appeal. Washington v. Scurr, 304 N.W.2d at 235 (citations omitted). See Wenman v. State, 327 N.W.2d 216, 217 (Iowa 1982) (The fact that Wenman's claim was not previously adjudicated in a direct appeal does not necessarily mean he is entitled to urge it in a postconviction action.); Iowa Code § 663A.2 (This remedy is not a substitute for ... direct review of the sentence or conviction.). A similar general principle guides federal decisions. See, e.g., United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 165, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1593, 71 L.Ed.2d 816, 828 (1982) ([W]e have long and consistently affirmed that a collateral challenge may not do service for an appeal.); Norris v. United States, 687 F.2d 899, 903 (7th Cir.1982). Polly asserts, however, that his case falls outside the above principles and within the exception announced in Redding, 274 N.W.2d at 317: Failure to appeal bars relief in a postconviction action on the ground of abuse of process only as to factual and legal contentions which the postconviction applicant knew of at the time of the original trial court proceeding and which he deliberately and inexcusably failed to pursue on appeal. Although not cited in Redding, it seems clear our ruling was consistent with Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391, 439, 83 S.Ct. 822, 849, 9 L.Ed.2d 837, 869 (1963), [3] where the following language is found: If a habeas applicant, after consultation with competent counsel or otherwise, understandingly and knowingly forewent the privilege of seeking to vindicate his federal claims in the state courts, whether for strategic, tactical, or any other reasons that can fairly be described as the deliberate by-passing of state procedures, then it is open to the federal court on habeas to deny him all relief if the state courts refused to entertain his federal claims on the merits.... The United States Supreme Court, however, later was to label the Fay v. Noia language as dicta, and limited by the rule in Francis v. Henderson, 425 U.S. 536, 96 S.Ct. 1708, 48 L.Ed.2d 149 (1976). Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U.S. 72, 85, 97 S.Ct. 2497, 2505, 53 L.Ed.2d 594, 607 (1977). The Francis Court, 425 U.S. at 542, 96 S.Ct. at 1711, 48 L.Ed.2d at 154-55, required that in a federal collateral attack upon a state court conviction the applicant must not only show cause for the failure to challenge the alleged error in state court, but must also show actual prejudice resulting from the errors of which he or she complains. [4] It is not sufficient that the applicant demonstrate the errors created a possibility of prejudice, he or she must shoulder the burden of showing they worked to his or her actual and substantial disadvantage, infecting the entire trial with error of constitutional dimensions. Frady, 456 U.S. at 171, 102 S.Ct. at 1596, 71 L.Ed.2d at 832. Some of the reasons undergirding the Sykes decision (narrowing the prior liberal grant of postconviction relief) were articulated recently in Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 126-29, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 1571-72, 71 L.Ed.2d 783, 799-801 (1982). These included extension of the trial ordeal for both society and the accused, degradation of the prominence and importance of the original criminal trial, diminution of the mutual concern of trial counsel and courts for the sanctity of constitutional safeguards when the right to correct such errors on postconviction is readily available, lessening of prisoner focus on good behavior and possible rehabilitation as prisoners concentrate on postconviction rather than parole for their release, and societal inability to punish the guilty when postconviction relief is granted so long after commission of the crime that retrial is a practical impossibility. Another reason, suggested by Sykes, 433 U.S. at 89, 97 S.Ct. at 2508, 53 L.Ed.2d at 609, is that defense counsel deliberately would elect not to appeal, thus providing the opportunity to importune a second (postconviction) district court on their client's behalf before submitting claims to an appellate tribunal. See, e.g., Reed v. Ross, ___ U.S. ____, ____, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2909, 82 L.Ed.2d 1, 13 (1984). The above reasons, viewed in light of the flood of postconviction proceedings and the concomitant requirement to conserve judicial resources, [5] move us to reexamine our Redding rule. We now modify that rule by imposing the Sykes requirements that the applicant not only show cause (or Iowa Code section 663A.8 sufficient reason) for failure to challenge the alleged errors in trial court, but also show actual prejudice resulting from these errors. Thus we turn to a de novo examination of the record to determine whether Polly met that burden.
The State concedes the plea and sentencing hearings did not comply fully with all of the Sisco requirements. We disapprove the court's failure to follow in detail those requirements. A few more minutes spent at that time would have avoided the long and expensive history of litigation in this case. See Iowa R.Crim.P. 8(2)(b) through (d). Nonetheless, we find Polly has not demonstrated sufficient reason or cause for failing to raise on direct appeal the errors of which he now complains. The evidence is overwhelming that he and his attorney knew they had achieved a windfall bargain on a plea negotiation with a judge and under no circumstances would they have risked an appeal that would have relegated Polly to square one before another court. The sentencing court's examination of Polly, with respect to his admissions of guilt to police officers on three different occasions, adequately shows the court had read the minutes of testimony accompanying the indictment. Clearly those minutes provided a factual basis for a guilty plea to first-degree murder. See State v. Marsan, 221 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Iowa 1974). The State apparently had evidence to support a theory the murder was premeditated, Polly intended to shoot his wife in the bathtub, dismember the body, and dispose of it in burlap sacks and boxes brought to the door, only to lose his nerve before the grisly task was completed. At minimum, the State had Polly's admissions he and the victim were quarreling. Other evidence disclosed by the minutes would show he used two weapons, inflicting separate, multiple and deadly wounds, while his victim was helpless in the bathtub. Any competent defense counsel would have been concerned that this evidence established the specific intent element of first-degree murder, and most assuredly would warrant a finding of malice aforethought to support a jury finding of second-degree murder. See State v. Smith, 242 N.W.2d 320, 326 (Iowa 1976). Further, Polly faced a mandatory life sentence if convicted of first-degree murder, Iowa Code section 690.2 (1975), or a sentence from ten years to life if found guilty of second-degree murder. Iowa Code § 690.3 (1975). Small wonder that, when Prichard finally found a judge who would agree to impose a 30-year sentence despite the above available State's evidence and the opposition of the county attorney, Polly grasped the opportunity to plead guilty to second-degree murder. Our de novo review of the whole record leads us to reject Polly's postconviction testimony that he had little or no recollection of the plea or sentencing proceedings. Polly's volunteered statement, under examination by the county attorney, pointing out such minutia as where the court reporter was sitting at the plea hearing is at war with his avowed inability to recollect the event. Nor do we believe his testimony that he did not know what a sentence was, or where the penitentiary was located or what it was like. He had spent time at the reformatory before he was admitted to the Oakdale institution for examination. The second-postconviction hearing record shows Polly was sophisticated enough to have read the record and to request the county attorney to refresh [his] mind concerning letters to his attorney. Polly was competent enough to hold down employment in a grocery store and beef packing plant. The psychiatric examination disclosed no mental illness or brain damage and found he was well aware of the nature and quality of the charges placed against him and the consequences if found guilty. We discern at work in this record what the examination found to be Polly's strong tendency to avoid dealing with unpleasant experiences. Defense counsel testified Polly knew what was going on at the plea hearing, and that he had explained the plea agreement and advised [Polly] of his probabilities of trying the case and explored with him what I thought was a possible defense, but it was his election to plead and accept the plea bargain that was offered us. Our finding that Polly's plea was voluntary in a constitutional sense is aided by the presumption that in most cases defense counsel routinely explain the nature of the offense in sufficient detail to give the accused notice of what he or she is being asked to admit. Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 436, 103 S.Ct. 843, 852, 74 L.Ed.2d 646, 660 (1983); State v. Higginbotham, 351 N.W.2d 513, 514 (Iowa 1984); see State v. Hansen, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1974). It is significant that Polly's application never alleged he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, nor did Polly ever make that contention. Attorney Prichard had been practicing approximately 25 years at the time of these events and had criminal case experience both as defense counsel and as prosecutor. Nor is there any doubt that Polly was advised fully of his right to appeal. However, he was well satisfied with his bargain until he had spent a year at the penitentiary, when he became dissatisfied with the time. In these circumstances we hold Polly has not shown cause for failing to raise in direct appeal the issues relating to procedural irregularities in his plea and sentencing hearings. Ordinarily the section 663A sufficient reason or the Sykes cause standard for failing to raise issues upon direct appeal logically may be based on the assumption that the issue, if known, would in fact be made a ground for a direct appeal then timely taken. That assumption, however, loses validity when a guilty plea proceeding has been based on extensive negotiations resulting not only in a degree-of-guilt agreement, but an agreement on the years of imprisonment to be included in the sentence. Thus in a case like this it is not sufficient, in our view, to show that Polly did not know all the Sisco requirements and therefore did not know he had grounds for appeal. His burden should extend to include some minimal and believable evidence that, given such knowledge, he in fact would have exercised his appeal right. We have here only Polly's conclusion, eight years after the event, that, had he been informed of his appeal rights, he would have appealed. The court's full explanation to Polly of those rights is spread of record. We give this self-serving testimony no credence. We hold Polly's cause showing is inadequate to justify setting aside his conviction, nine years after the event.
Nor do we believe Polly has demonstrated he was prejudiced by the hearing infirmities he now points out. Much of what we have written in the last subdivision applies here. Polly and his counsel were confronted with overwhelming evidence that Polly had killed his wife in a gruesome and savage attack, after a quarrel, in circumstances that would trigger a finding of malice aforethought and would justify a finding of premeditation. Polly has never asserted he was convicted wrongly of a crime of which he was innocent. See Frady, 456 U.S. at 171, 102 S.Ct. at 1596, 71 L.Ed.2d at 832. The judge-shoppingwhich we do not condoneand the subsequent negotiations culminated in an agreement that was to Polly's definite advantage. Disregarding our impatience and frustration with trial court's failure to follow strictly all of the plea and sentencing requirementsomissions which permitted this extensive litigationwe find on the whole record Polly was accorded substantial due process. Polly has shown no prejudice resulting from district court's omissions, or that the defects worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage. Frady, 456 U.S. at 170, 102 S.Ct. at 1596, 71 L.Ed.2d at 832. It is clear he and his attorney had achieved a satisfactory plea agreement and regardless of any additional statements by the court, the same plea would have been entered and the same sentence imposed. As we indicated in the last subdivision, an appeal that might have sent the case back to district courtpossibly before a different judge would have been the last thing Polly or his attorney wanted at that juncture.