Opinion
No. 12–0799.
2013-02-27
Matthew John KIPPE, Applicant–Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Dale E. Ruigh, Judge. Matthew Kippe appeals the district court's denials of both his application for postconviction relief and his motion for DNA testing. AFFIRMED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Paul Crawford, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Dale E. Ruigh, Judge.
Matthew Kippe appeals the district court's denials of both his application for postconviction relief and his motion for DNA testing. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Paul Crawford, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and POTTERFIELD and DOYLE, JJ.
DOYLE, J.
After being charged, as a habitual offender, with burglary in the first degree and sexual abuse in the third degree, Matthew Kippe pled guilty to burglary in the third degree, a class “D” felony, and to indecent exposure, a serious misdemeanor. He later filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR), alleging among other things, his plea was not knowing and voluntary, and his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. He subsequently filed a motion to have DNA re-tested at State expense. Following the PCR court's denials of both his application and motion, he appeals.
We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the PCR court's rulings. We conclude the PCR court did not abuse its discretion in denying Kippe's motion for DNA testing. The PCR court's ruling denying Kippe's application for PCR was perceptive, thorough, and thoughtful. We agree with the PCR court's reasoning, its conclusions under the facts presented, and its application of the law. Any further discussion by our court would add little to and not change the disposition of this case. Accordingly, the PCR court's orders denying Kippe's motion for DNA testing and his application for PCR are affirmed without opinion. SeeIowa R.App. P. 6.1203(a), (d).
AFFIRMED.