Opinion
No. 2-516 / 01-0302
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Todd A. Geer, Judge.
Dale Viers appeals from the district court ruling denying his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
David Roth of Gallagher, Langlas Gallagher, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Ferguson, County Attorney, and D. Raymond Walton, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Hecht, JJ.
Dale Viers appeals from a district court ruling denying his application for postconviction relief based upon ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Viers was found guilty by a jury of first-degree kidnapping and second-degree sexual assault. Viers appealed his conviction, alleging (1) abuse of discretion by the district court in its denial of his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, and (2) the search warrant obtained by law enforcement was not issued by a "detached and neutral magistrate." We affirmed Viers' convictions. See State v. Viers, No. 95-0984 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 27, 1996). Viers filed an application for postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel in three instances. He claimed his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to (1) timely file a motion to suppress; (2) preserve applicant's speedy trial right; and (3) present evidence concerning sexually transmitted diseases. The district court rejected all of Viers' claims. Viers contends on appeal the district court erred only in rulings on claim (1) and (2).
II. Standard of Review
Generally, the scope of review in postconviction cases is for correction of errors of law. See Bugley v. State, 596 N.W.2d 893, 895 (Iowa 1999). However, when the applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature, such as ineffective assistance of counsel, our review is de novo. Id.
III. Error Preservation
Iowa Code section 822.8 (2001) states
[a]ny ground finally adjudicated or not raised, or knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence, or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application.
Thus, an applicant for postconviction relief must provide sufficient reasons why any ground for relief raised in a postconviction petition was not raised on direct appeal. See Bugley v. State, 596 N.W.2d 893, 896 (Iowa 1999). If the applicant fails to provide sufficient reasons, then the ground for relief may not be asserted in a postconviction relief petition. Id.
In Viers' direct appeal, he claimed the district court abused its discretion when it improperly issued a search warrant and denied a motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, but he did not raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Now, however, in his petition for postconviction relief, Viers' claims for relief are based on ineffective assistance of counsel. While these claims would be entertained if he provided a sufficient reason for his failure to raise them in his direct appeal, Viers offers no explanation at all. Without any reason, much less a sufficient reason, provided for the failure to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal, we are left with no choice but to uphold the district court's dismissal of applicant's petition for postconviction relief.
AFFIRMED.