From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Aug 17, 2016
886 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

Summary

holding Martin failed to demonstrate that similarly described documents could not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence within the limitations period and that "at least some of these documents were in Martin's possession at the time of his last PCR application" and concluding Martin "failed to demonstrate the evidence was newly discovery, not previously discoverable, or that said evidence requires vacation of his plea in the interest of justice"

Summary of this case from Martin v. State

Opinion

No. 15–1622.

08-17-2016

Bruce Evan MARTIN, Applicant–Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee.

Courtney T. Wilson of Gomez May, L.L.P., Davenport, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State.


DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Martin v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Aug 17, 2016
886 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

holding Martin failed to demonstrate that similarly described documents could not have been discovered in the exercise of reasonable diligence within the limitations period and that "at least some of these documents were in Martin's possession at the time of his last PCR application" and concluding Martin "failed to demonstrate the evidence was newly discovery, not previously discoverable, or that said evidence requires vacation of his plea in the interest of justice"

Summary of this case from Martin v. State
Case details for

Martin v. State

Case Details

Full title:Bruce Evan MARTIN, Applicant–Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Date published: Aug 17, 2016

Citations

886 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

Martin v. State

In fact, it appears Martin raised this claim in his failed fourth PCR action, which this court affirmed on…