Court Opinion

ID: 9781107
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:06:49.332334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:11:07.991186
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 21-1880
                               Filed August 30, 2023

ELVIN MARQUETTE FARRIS,
     Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
     Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.

Andreasen, Judge.

      A postconviction applicant appeals the summary disposition of his

challenge to a traffic violation. AFFIRMED.

      Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

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

TABOR, Judge.

       The Sioux City police ticketed Elvin Farris for driving while his license was

suspended. When he did not appear for trial on this simple misdemeanor charge,

the district court relied upon his signature bond on the ticket to enter a conviction.

Farris applied for postconviction relief (PCR), noting his attorney withdrew the

morning of trial and did not advise that Farris was “expected in court that day.” The

State moved for summary judgment.1 The court granted the State’s motion, finding

no genuine issue of material fact that would entitle Farris to relief.

       Farris appeals that summary disposition, claiming trial counsel provided

ineffective assistance by not advising him of the consequences for failing to appear

for trial. He also asserts that counsel’s “abandonment of [him] prejudiced his ability

to present his case to the judge.”

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

correction of legal error. Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018). But

when the basis for relief is ineffective assistance of counsel, we review the ruling

de novo. Id.

       In finding the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district

court declared that Farris “was required to appear with or without counsel.” The

court pointed out that no continuance had been granted. And Farris did not allege

that his attorney informed him that the trial would be continued or that he did not

need to appear. On this record, the court decided: “[N]o reasonable fact finder

1  Summary judgment principles apply to motions for disposition of a PCR
application without a trial on the merits. Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 560
(Iowa 2002); compare Iowa Code § 822.6(3) (2021).
                                            3

could conclude that [Farris] was denied effective assistance of counsel because

no reasonable fact finder could conclude that [he] suffered any prejudice as a result

of the actions or inactions of [his trial attorney].”

       Because the district court’s opinion identifies and considers all of the issues

that Farris presented, and we approve of the analysis in its summary judgment

ruling, we affirm by memorandum opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d). In our

view, a full opinion would not enhance existing law. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).

       AFFIRMED.