Donald Ray Lawrence, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0114
Filed July 6, 2017
DONALD RAY LAWRENCE,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P.
Odekirk, Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
John G. Daufeldt of Daufeldt Law Firm, P.L.C., Conroy, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Donald Lawrence appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief, claiming the State’s motion to dismiss was untimely and his
application was timely filed. We find the State’s motion to dismiss was not
untimely and the district court properly dismissed Lawrence’s application as
being filed beyond the statute of limitations. We affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Lawrence was convicted of first-degree murder in 1982, and his conviction
was affirmed. See State v. Lawrence, 344 N.W.2d 227 (Iowa 1984). Lawrence
has filed multiple postconviction-relief applications on differing grounds that have
all been denied. Lawrence filed his current application on August 18, 2014. The
State filed a motion to dismiss on February 20, 2015, asserting Lawrence’s
application was time barred by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2014). A hearing on
the motion to dismiss was continued several times. Lawrence also filed a motion
for the approval of a medical expert on October 2 and subsequently amended his
petition. The motion to dismiss and the motion for the approval of a medical
expert were heard on December 21.
At the hearing, only arguments on the motion to dismiss were heard. The
court entered an order granting the motion to dismiss on January 11, 2016.
Lawrence now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
“We ordinarily review postconviction relief proceedings for errors at law.”
Love v. State, 543 N.W.2d 621, 623 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted).
3
Summary dismissals of postconviction actions are also reviewed for correction of
errors at law. Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 792 (Iowa 2011).
III. Dismissal
Lawrence claims the district court violated Iowa Code section 822.6 and
relevant case law by dismissing his application for postconviction relief. Iowa
Code section 822.6 provides two methods for summary disposition of
postconviction actions: (1) on the court’s own initiative when “the applicant is not
entitled to postconviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further
proceedings” and (2) by motion by either party.
Iowa Code section 822.3 allows a postconviction action to be dismissed if
the application is not “filed within three years from the date the conviction or
decision is final or . . . from the date the writ of procedendo is issued.” However,
if “a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the applicable
time period” is asserted, the statute of limitations will not apply. Iowa Code §
822.3Lawrence’s claims rest on the wording, and application, of Iowa Code
section 822.6. Lawrence’s claims also require the district court to have
summarily dismissed the postconviction action. However, it is apparent the
district court’s ruling was based only on Iowa Code section 822.3 and did not
summarily dismiss the postconviction action but rather found Lawrence’s claims
were time-barred. See Ramirez v. State, No. 13-1847, 2015 WL 4936386, at
*1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015). The requirements of section 822.6 are not
applied to dismissals based on section 822.3. The postconviction claim made by
Lawrence was clearly time-barred as it was filed more than thirty years after his
4
conviction. While his application attempts to raise “a ground of fact or law that
could not have been raised within the applicable time period,” the record shows
this information was known to him in 1986. We find the district court did not err in
dismissing Lawrence’s postconviction action.
AFFIRMED.