Background
Bobby Eugene McGee pleaded guilty to first-degree robbery in 2012. His conviction became final that year because he did not appeal. McGee filed his first postconviction-relief application in 2015; its denial was affirmed on appeal in 2020.
Also in 2020, McGee filed a second postconviction-relief action. His sole asserted basis for relief was alleged ineffective assistance by counsel in his first postconviction proceeding. The postconviction court dismissed the application as untimely under Iowa Code section 822.3.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed. McGee argued on appeal that he should have received an evidentiary hearing to establish an exception to the time bar, but he had not made that argument in the postconviction court. The appellate court declined to decide that unpreserved claim.
As to any issue properly before it, the court agreed that the second application was untimely by years. Relying on Ruiz v. State, the court explained that ineffective-assistance claims do not extend the postconviction statute of limitations. To the extent McGee’s appellate briefing could be read to challenge his second postconviction counsel’s effectiveness, the court did not reach that issue on the existing record.
Key Takeaways
- A postconviction applicant must preserve a claimed exception to the limitations period in the district court.
- Alleged ineffective assistance does not itself extend Iowa’s postconviction-relief limitations period.
- An appellate court may decline to resolve a claim concerning postconviction counsel’s effectiveness when the record does not permit review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that Iowa postconviction litigants must timely file and clearly raise any statutory-timeliness exception in the postconviction court. Recasting a late application as an ineffective-assistance claim will not avoid the limitations bar.