Opinion
22-2032
03-27-2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MANUAL J. SEENSTER JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Christopher Raker of Alliance Law Office, P.C., East Dubuque, Illinois, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clayton County, Richard D. Stochl, Judge.
A defendant appeals an order denying his motion for a new trial on a remand from this court. DISTRICT COURT RULING VACATED AND CASE REMANDED.
Christopher Raker of Alliance Law Office, P.C., East Dubuque, Illinois, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
TABOR, PRESIDING JUDGE.
After jurors found Manual Seenster Jr. guilty of delivery of methamphetamine, he sought a new trial, alleging their verdict was against the weight of the evidence. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(2)(b)(6). The district court denied his motion but mistakenly applied a sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. Seenster appealed. Our court conditionally affirmed his conviction but vacated the ruling denying his motion for new trial and remanded for application of the weight-of-the-evidence standard. See State v. Seenster, No. 21-1467, 2022 WL 16985426, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 17, 2022).
But before the appellate clerk issued procedendo to remand the case, the district court again denied the motion for new trial. Seenster filed a notice of appeal from that order, which received a new appellate case number. That second appeal is before us now.
The court entered its ruling on December 9, 2022. Procedendo did not issue until January 3, 2023.
In June 2023, Seenster filed an appellant's proof brief challenging an evidentiary ruling made during his trial; that issue was not raised in either the motion for new trial or the first appeal. In September 2023, the State moved to dismiss the second appeal. The motion noted that our court remanded solely to have the district court apply the correct legal standard to Seenster's new trial motion. See State v. O'Shea, 634 N.W.2d 150, 159 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (finding no other issues are properly before the court on appeal from such a remand). The State argued: "Because Seenster's notice of appeal is from the December 9, 2022, order, the [appellate] Court has no jurisdiction to consider matters unrelated to that order." Seenster resisted dismissal.
The supreme court did not rule on the State's motion to dismiss. Instead, it asked for jurisdictional statements from the parties, writing:
The district court entered its ruling on remand prior to the issuance of procedendo. This court thus questions whether the district court had jurisdiction to enter the December 9 ruling. See In re M.T., 714 N.W.2d 278, 282 (Iowa 2006) ("Once procedendo has issued, the jurisdiction of the supreme court ceases. Indeed, the entire purpose of a procedendo is to notify the lower court that the case is transferred back to that court." (citations omitted)).
Seeking clarification, the supreme court ordered the parties to address "whether this court can consider an appeal from the district court's December 9 ruling." In its statement, the State reasoned that because the district court did not have jurisdiction when it ruled (for the second time) on the new trial motion, that ruling may not be considered on appeal. In his statement, Seenster ignored whether the district court had jurisdiction on December 9. He argued only that because his December 12 notice of appeal "prompted the opening of a wholly new appellate case number" his evidentiary claim was not beyond the scope of the remand order. After reviewing the parties' statements, the supreme court determined that "the motion to dismiss and the issue regarding the district court's jurisdiction shall be submitted with the appeal." After the parties submitted their briefs, the supreme court transferred the case to us.
We now turn to those briefs. In his appellant's brief, Seenster does not mention the jurisdictional issue. Instead, he forges ahead with his evidentiary claim. By contrast, the State urges judicial restraint. In its appellee's brief, the State argues: "This appeal should be dismissed because the district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the motion for new trial. Additionally, Seenster's challenge to an evidentiary ruling is beyond the scope of the limited remand."
The State is partially correct. The district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the new trial motion on December 9, 2022, because the matter was still on appeal. See State v. T.J.W., No. 22-0805, ____N.W.3d____, ____, 2024 WL 500660, at *2 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) (explaining that an appeal terminates a district court's jurisdiction over the merits of a controversy). Jurisdiction did not return to the district court until procedendo issued on January 3, 2023. See M.T., 714 N.W.2d at 282. Its ruling before that date was a nullity. See State v. Hillery, 956 N.W.2d 492, 501 (Iowa 2021). But "[w]e do not dismiss the appeal because the issue is not a lack of jurisdiction in this court but rather the lack of jurisdiction of the district court." State v. Mallett, 677 N.W.2d 775, 776 (Iowa 2004). Our recourse is to vacate the order denying a new trial-which leaves us nothing to review. See id. The case is remanded for the district court to address the pending new trial motion that was the subject of our remand in the first appeal.
DISTRICT COURT RULING VACATED AND CASE REMANDED.