Opinion
No. 1-907 / 01-0296.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, ALAN L. PEARSON (motions), LAWRENCE H. FAUTSCH (postconviction hearing), Judges.
Joseph Daniels appeals the district court order denying his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Timothy Goen, Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Odell, Assistant Attorney General, Fred McCaw, County Attorney, and Timothy Gallagher Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and ZIMMER and VAITHESWARAN, JJ.
Joseph Daniels appeals from the denial of his postconviction relief application. We affirm on appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Supreme Court Rule 9.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS .
In 1997, Joseph Daniels accepted the terms of a plea agreement and pled guilty to two counts of delivery of cocaine. He did not file a motion in arrest of judgment prior to sentencing. On May 20, 1997, the district court sentenced Daniels to two concurrent terms not to exceed ten years but suspended his sentence. The defendant did not file a direct appeal.
In August 1999, Daniels's probation was revoked and he was ordered to serve the concurrent ten-year prison terms. He did not directly challenge his probation revocation. The defendant filed a pro se application for postconviction relief on December 20, 1999, alleging two errors which allegedly occurred while his original criminal case was pending. He requested a new trial.
The State did not file an answer to Daniels's application for postconviction relief and on May 31, 2000, the Dubuque County District Court ordered the State to file an answer within thirty days. When the State again failed to answer, the district court entered a default judgment against the State and scheduled a hearing on relief for September 12, 2000.
The record reveals the State did not appear at the September 12th hearing. No evidence was received by the court. The district court granted the petitioner's oral request, made the day of hearing, to set aside the prior court order revoking his probation. The court ordered the defendant returned to probationary status on the two charges of delivery of cocaine.
Following entry of the court's ruling, the State appeared for the first time and moved for amended findings and conclusions and for a modified judgment. The State asked the court to enter judgment in the form required by section 822.7 of the Code of Iowa and further argued that the court was without authority to enter a default judgment against the State pursuant to Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613, 617-18 (Iowa 1974). After considering the arguments of the parties, the district court vacated the default judgment it had previously entered and ordered that a hearing be held on the merits of Daniels's application for postconviction relief.
On January 19, 2001, the district court filed an order denying postconviction relief to the petitioner following an evidentiary hearing. Daniels filed a timely notice of appeal. Daniels does not challenge the district court's January 19, 2001 order denying his application for postconviction relief on its merits. On appeal, he only challenges the district court's order vacating the default judgment.
II. DISCUSSION .
Upon review of the record, we conclude the district court acted properly in vacating the default judgment it had entered against the State. In Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613, 618 (Iowa 1974), our highest court held that a default judgment may not be entered against the State in a postconviction relief proceeding. Accord Thomas v. State, 220 N.W.2d 874, 877 (Iowa 1974). In view of our highest court's holding in Furgison, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in vacating its prior order for default judgment.
Assuming arguendo that the State's default admitted all allegations in Daniels's petition for postconviction relief, we still do not believe Daniels was entitled to any relief under his application as pled. Petitioner claims he was precluded from attending a pre-trial deposition and prevented from listening to a tape recording made during a drug buy. Even if we assume his claims are true, Daniels failed to show how he was prejudiced by these pre-trial incidents or how they rendered his subsequent guilty plea involuntary. No error requires reversal absent the showing of prejudice. State v. Boley, 456 N.W.2d 674, 678 (Iowa 1990).
We also agree with the State's contention that Daniels was not entitled to relief at the September 12, 2000 hearing, absent supporting evidence. The petitioner did not file a motion in arrest of judgment following his guilty plea or a direct appeal following his original sentence. As a result, he was prohibited from litigating his claims in postconviction relief and was entitled to neither a new trial nor a return to his probationary status. A postconviction relief applicant must show sufficient reason for failing to raise on direct appeal any claims that could have been raised at that time. See Bugley v. State, 596 N.W.2d 893, 896-97 (Iowa 1999). Daniels made no such showing.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.