Mayual Mike Anyuon v. State of Iowa ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0592
Filed November 2, 2022
MAYUAL MIKE ANYUON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Thomas P. Murphy,
Judge.
The applicant appeals the district court decision denying his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy and
Stephan J. Japuntich (until withdrawal), Assistant Appellate Defenders, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2022).
2
CARR, Senior Judge.
Mayual Anyuon appeals the district court decision denying his application
for postconviction relief. We conclude the district court did not err in its conclusion
that Anyuon’s petition for postconviction relief was barred by the three-year statute
of limitations in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018). We affirm the district court’s
decision granting summary disposition to the State.
Anyoun was charged with possession of marijuana, in violation of Iowa
Code section 124.401(5) (2013), a serious misdemeanor, and theft in the third
degree, in violation of section 714.2(3), an aggravated misdemeanor. He pled
guilty to the charges and was sentenced on February 14, 2014. Anyuon did not
appeal his convictions.
On December 3, 2018, Anyuon filed an application for postconviction relief,
claiming he received ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not
adequately explain the immigration consequences of his guilty plea. He claimed
he was not advised “about the slightest possibility of removal from the U.S.”
The State filed a motion for summary disposition on the ground that
Anyuon’s petition was filed more than three years after the judgment of conviction
in his case and was barred by the statute of limitations in section 822.3. Anyuon
resisted the motion, claiming the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling in Diaz v. State, 896
N.W.2d 723, 732 (Iowa 2017), “that counsel has an obligation to inform his or her
client of all the adverse immigration consequences that competent counsel would
uncover,” created “a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised” within
the three-year period. See Iowa Code § 822.3.
3
The district court granted the State’s motion for summary disposition. The
court found Anyuon’s application for postconviction relief was filed outside the
three-year limitations period and did not raise “a ground of fact or law that could
not have been raised” within the three-year period. See id. Anyuon appeals the
district court’s decision.
We review a district court’s ruling finding that a postconviction application is
untimely for the correction of errors at law. Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509,
519 (Iowa 2003). “Thus, we will affirm if the trial court's findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence and the law was correctly applied.” Id.In Ndikumana v. State, we addressed a claim that Diaz created a new legal
rule so that an application for postconviction relief filed within three years after Diaz
was decided was timely under section 822.3. No. 19-0269, 2020 WL 2060308,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2020). The Iowa Court of Appeals stated:
We have determined “Diaz is not a change in law but rather
an application of the existing law found in Padilla.”[1] Ramirez v.
State, No. 16-1893, 2018 WL 2727707, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App.
June 6, 2018); see also Garcia v. State, No. 18-2021, 2019
WL 5063328, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2019); Zacarias v. State,
No. 18-0686, 2019 WL 3714815, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2019).
For this reason, Diaz “does not qualify as a new-ground-of-law
exception to the three-year time-bar of Iowa Code section 822.3.”
Garcia, 2019 WL 5063328, at *3.
Id.; see also Remeliik v. State, No. 21-0655, 2022 WL 2348170, at *2 (Iowa Ct.
App. June 29, 2022) (noting the Diaz decision should not be applied retroactively).
Our caselaw does not support Anyuon’s claim that the ruling in Diaz created
“a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised” within the three-year
1Referring to Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 366 (2010), which held defense
counsel should advise defendants whether a guilty plea could result in deportation.
4
period. See Iowa Code § 822.3. We conclude the district court did not err in its
conclusion that Anyuon’s petition for postconviction relief was barred by the three-
year statute of limitations in section 822.3. We affirm the district court’s decision
granting summary disposition to the State.
AFFIRMED.