Langdeaux v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Langdeaux v. Lund

    No. C12-4081-MWB (N.D. Iowa Apr. 21, 2015)

    On Appeal, Langdeaux argued, inter alia, that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to investigate a witness's statement, and in providing inadequate advice about a plea offer. See Langdeaux v. State, 817 N.W.2d 31, 2012 WL 1439077, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012) (unpublished table decision). On the first issue, Langdeaux's argument regarding his trial counsels' failure to further investigate Sheriff Rolfes's statement, the Iowa Court of Appeals noted that one of Langdeaux's attorneys testified he had interviewed the sheriff.

  2. Hicks v. State

    No. 20-0610 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 15, 2021)

    Courts have "considerable discretion in ruling on a motion for leave to amend." Langdeaux v. State, No.10-1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012). For the same reasons stated above, the court did not abuse that discretion in finding the proposed amendment had been decided on direct appeal and therefore could not be raised again.

  3. Barnes v. State

    No. 15-1644 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 27, 2017)

    The ruling dismissing the second application was filed in January 2014. While the second postconviction court stated Barnes could file a new application based on newly discovered evidence, Barnes did not raise the newly discovered evidence claim in his third postconviction application until just before the hearing. See Langdeaux v. State, No. 10-1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *8 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012) (affirming postconviction court's denial of motion to amend for untimeliness); see also Bennett v. City of Redfield, 446 N.W.2d 467, 475 (Iowa 1989) (affirming district court's denial of motion to amend because it substantially changed the issues at trial and was untimely). Yet Barnes had knowledge of the evidence in 2013, and the issue could have been raised in his second postconviction application amendments or when the third application was filed in 2014.

  4. Garcia-Miranda v. State

    884 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

    Garcia–Miranda now appeals, raising a single issue: “Appellate counsel had a duty to raise the Heemstra issue in a way that the holding applied to [him],” i.e., “that failing to apply Heemstra to [him] would violate his right to equal protection under either the Iowa or United States Constitutions.” This court has rejected similar arguments. See, e.g., Enderle v. State, No. 12–1635, 2014 WL 956018, at *4 (Iowa Ct.App. Mar. 12, 2014) ; Langdeaux v. State, No. 10–1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *7 (Iowa Ct . App. Apr. 25, 2012), Dixon v. State, No. 10–1691, 2011 WL 5867929, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct.App. Nov. 23, 2011) ; Herrarte v. State, No. 08–1295, 2011 WL 768763, at *2 (Iowa Ct.App. Mar. 7, 2011).Garcia–Miranda's contention is similarly unpersuasive.

  5. Burkett v. State

    871 N.W.2d 703 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)

    Even if Burkett could avail himself of the ground-of-law exception, we have repeatedly rejected equal protection challenges to the prospective-only application of Heemstra. Langdeaux v. State, No. 10–1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *6–7 (Iowa Ct.App. Apr.25, 2012); Dixon v. State, No. 10–1691, 2011 WL 5867929, at *2–3 (Iowa Ct.App. Nov.23, 2011); Herrarte v. State, No. 08–1295, 2011 WL 768763, at *2 (Iowa Ct.App. Mar.7, 2011). We find those opinions persuasive.

  6. Horlas v. State

    854 N.W.2d 73 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    Finally, we note the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Heemstra is inapplicable to this case because Horlas's direct appeal was final prior the decision in Heemstra. See Langdeaux v. State, No. 10–1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *5–6 (Iowa Ct.App. Apr.25, 2012) (denying various claims concerning the nonretroactivity of the Heemstra decision and observing the Heemstra court expressly “limited its decision ‘to the present case and those cases not finally resolved on direct appeal in which the issue has been raised in the district court’ ” (quoting Heemstra. 721 N.W.2d at 558)). Any further discussion of the issues raised by our court would add little to and not change the disposition of this case.

  7. Enderle v. State

    No. 3-960 / 12-1635 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 12, 2014)

    Enderle contends "the court's decision to not apply the Heemstra case retroactively is an unreasonable classification which violates the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article One Section Six of the Iowa Constitution." This court was not persuaded by similar arguments in Langdeaux v. State, No. 10-1625, 2012 WL 1439077, at *7 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2012), Dixon v. State, No. 10-1691, 2011 WL 5867929, at *2-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2011) and Herrarte v. State, No. 08-1295, 2011 WL 768763, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 7, 2011). Enderle's argument is equally unpersuasive.