Court Opinion

ID: 9400149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-07 16:06:15.935897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:42.446450
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-0853
                               Filed June 7, 2023

SAMUEL MONTEZ WRIGHT,
    Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
     Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

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

Andreasen, Judge.

      Samuel Wright appeals the summary denial of his second postconviction

relief application. APPEAL DISMISSED.

      Jack Bjornstad of Jack Bjornstad Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

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

General, for appellee State.

      Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Scott, S.J.*

      *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
                                            2

SCOTT, Senior Judge.

        In 2008, Samuel Wright was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree

robbery, and first-degree kidnapping. Wright appealed and, on January 22, 2010,

this court affirmed his convictions. State v. Wright, No. 08-1737, 2010 WL 200052,

at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2010). Procedendo issued on March 24, 2010.

        On August 16, 2010, Wright filed his first application for postconviction relief

(PCR) asserting newly discovered evidence and raising several issues regarding

the effectiveness of previous counsel. After a trial on the merits, the application

was denied, and this court affirmed on appeal. Wright v. State, No. 15-1530, 2017

WL 936077, at *12 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017). Procedendo issued on April 17,

2017.

        On June 29, 2018, our supreme court held:

                In order to avoid the difficult constitutional position that would
        result in denying a remedy where defense counsel allegedly
        provided ineffective assistance at trial and postconviction counsel is
        ineffective in raising that claim, we think the best approach is to hold
        that where a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial
        counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a
        successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was
        ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel
        claim, the timing of the filing of the second PCR petition relates back
        to the timing of the filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of
        Iowa Code section 822.3 if the successive PCR petition is filed
        promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR action.

Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018), superseded by statute as

stated in Sandoval v. State, 975 N.W.2d 434, 436 (Iowa 2022).

        On November 16, 2018, Wright filed his second PCR application. The State

moved for summary judgment on September 9, 2019, asserting the application

was time-barred.      Wright, by appointed counsel, resisted the motion.             The
                                          3

postconviction court noted, “The sole question to be determined at this time is

whether the current PCR action was filed ‘promptly’ after the conclusion of Wright’s

first PCR action.” On April 29, 2022, the PCR court found the second application

was not promptly filed and dismissed the application.

       On May 18, 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court docketed Wright’s mailed pro

se informational notice of appeal and appointment of counsel. To date, neither

Wright nor his court-appointed attorney has filed a notice of appeal with the district

court, and the district court has never certified such a notice to the supreme court.

See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.102(2) (requiring a notice of appeal be timely filed with the

clerk of the district court); 6.102(2)(b) (requiring an “informational copy” of the

notice of appeal be filed with the supreme court); 6.802(1) (directing the district

court to transmit certified copies of the notice of appeal). The supreme court

ordered Wright’s PCR counsel to address the issue of the court’s jurisdiction.1

Counsel asserted the court should consider granting Wright a delayed appeal

based on his pro se notice of appeal expressing his good faith intent to appeal and

the court’s acceptance of the filing. The jurisdictional issue was ordered submitted

with the appeal.

       Wright’s pro se notice of appeal filed in May 2022 “while he was represented

by counsel was a nullity under Iowa Code section 822.3A (2021), which prohibits

the filing of pro se documents by represented parties and the court’s consideration

thereof.” Jones v. State, 981 N.W.2d 141, 143 (Iowa 2022). The later amendment

1 Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.109(4) provides, “The attorneys . . . of record
in the district court shall be deemed the attorneys . . . in the appellate court unless
others are retained or appointed and notice is given to the parties and the clerk of
the supreme court.”
                                        4

allowing pro se notices of appeal was not effective until July 1, 2022. See 2022

Iowa Acts ch. 1110, § 2 (codified at Iowa Code § 822.3A(3)(b) (2023)). Because

a delayed appeal is not available in postconviction proceedings, we dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction.2 Jones, 981 N.W.2d at 143.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.

2This court is without authority to overturn supreme court precedent. See State v.
Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are not at liberty to
overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).