Court Opinion

ID: 9959040
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:06:14.735263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:26.671360
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-0502
                               Filed April 10, 2024

DEONTE DWIGHT WILLIAMS,
    Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
     Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge.

      Deonte Williams appeals the order granting summary dismissal of his

application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

      Cathleen J. Siebricht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Pleasant Hill, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                           2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

       Deonte Williams appeals the order granting summary dismissal of his

application for postconviction relief (PCR) after finding it was time-barred. He filed

his PCR application in February 2022, challenging the sentences imposed after he

pled guilty to two counts of second-degree robbery in December 2017. The PCR

court granted the State’s motion to dismiss the application because it was not filed

within three years of the date his conviction became final, as required by Iowa

Code section 822.3 (2022). On appeal, Williams contends the PCR court erred by

dismissing his application without allowing him the opportunity to fully develop the

record and challenges the constitutionality of section 822.3.         For the reasons

below, we affirm.

       We review the summary dismissal of a PCR application for correction of

errors at law. Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018). Applying our

summary judgment standards to summary disposition of PCR applications,

summary disposition is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show . . .

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled

to a judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Iowa R. Civ.

P. 1.981(3)). The State, as the moving party, bears the burden of proving there

are no genuine issues of material fact, and we review the record in the light most

favorable to Williams. See id.

       Applying these standards, we agree that the State proved no issue of

material fact is in dispute. The PCR application states that Williams’s convictions

were final in December 2017.            Under section 822.3, Williams had until
                                          3

December 2020 to apply for PCR from those convictions. His PCR application

was filed more than one year after the limitation period expired. Because his

application was untimely on its face, summary dismissal was appropriate.

       Williams complains that he was not allowed an opportunity to prove his PCR

application falls under the exception in section 822.3 for grounds of fact or law that

could not have been raised within the three-year limitation period. But despite the

PCR court twice extending the deadline to amend his application, Williams never

argued that he could not raise his claim earlier. Nor did he make that argument at

the hearing on the State’s motion. Considering Williams’s silence on the issue, the

PCR court properly granted summary dismissal.1

       Finally, Williams challenges the constitutionality of section 822.3. The issue

was neither presented to nor ruled on by the PCR court. Because error was not

preserved for our review, we do not address this claim on appeal. See Meier v.

Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of

appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the

district court before we will decide them on appeal.”).

       We affirm the summary dismissal of Williams’s PCR application.

       AFFIRMED.

1 Williams also claims the PCR court failed to provide notice under section 822.6(2)

(“The applicant shall be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal.”).
But section 822.6(2) applies only to dismissals made on the court’s initiative. See
Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 559 (Iowa 2002).