RAMIREZ v. STATE (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-08-18No. No. 20-0674

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Ramirez's fourth postconviction relief application as untimely, holding that the application failed to meet the relation-back exception requirements because it was not filed promptly after the conclusion of his prior proceeding.

Isidro Ramirez, convicted of first-degree murder in 1998, filed his fourth application for postconviction relief in 2019—more than fifteen years after the three-year statute of limitations had expired. Ramirez argued that the relation-back exception established in Allison v. State should allow his application to proceed despite being untimely. Under Allison, a successive postconviction application may relate back to an earlier timely filing if three conditions are met: the original petition was timely filed, the successive petition claims the prior postconviction counsel was ineffective, and the new petition is filed promptly after the first proceeding concludes.

The court rejected Ramirez's argument because his fourth application did not satisfy the relation-back requirements. Most critically, Ramirez filed his current application forty-four months after his third postconviction proceeding ended, which the court determined was not prompt. Additionally, even if the time period were measured from when Allison was decided in 2018, Ramirez's 2019 filing came approximately twelve months later, still failing to meet the promptness standard. The concurrence noted a separate basis for rejection: Allison applies only to second postconviction applications, and courts have repeatedly held it does not extend to third or subsequent filings, making Ramirez's fourth application ineligible regardless of timing.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether postconviction relief applications filed outside the statutory limitations period may qualify for relation-back relief under Allison v. State
What constitutes a 'prompt' filing for purposes of the relation-back doctrine
Whether the relation-back exception applies to fourth or subsequent postconviction applications

Procedural posture

Ramirez appealed the district court's grant of the State's motion for summary disposition of his fourth postconviction relief application on statute-of-limitations grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

I. Summary

Isidro Ramirez appeals the summary disposition of his fourth application for postconviction relief (PCR). Because his application is well outside the statute of limitations and does not meet the criteria of the relation-back exception set out in Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018), we affirm the ruling of the district court.

II. Facts and Background

Ramirez was convicted, in 1998, of first-degree murder. Since the conviction, Ramirez has been serving a life sentence. In that time, Ramirez has filed for PCR three times. This appeal relates to his fourth application.

Ramirezs first PCR application was in January 2002. In this first application, Ramirez alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The district court denied Ramirezs application in its entirety. On appeal, Ramirez claimed ineffective assistance of PCR counsel, and this court found Ramirezs claim too general to address or preserve. Ramirez v. State, No. 03-1224, 2005 WL 973610, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2005).

In 2006, Ramirez filed a second PCR application. This application was dismissed by the district court. His appeal in the second PCR proceeding was dismissed as frivolous. Ramirez v. State, No. 13-1847, 2015 WL 4936386, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 19, 2015) (discussing the history of the case).

In 2011, Ramirez filed a third PCR application, which was summarily dismissed by the district because the statute of limitations had expired. The court of appeals affirmed the ruling of the district court. Id. at *2.

The instant appeal follows Ramirezs fourth PCR application. Filed in 2019, Ramirez again asserts ineffective assistance of counsel. The State moved for summary disposition, reasoning the claim is time-barred under the three-year statute of limitations for PCR actions. The district court agreed, determining Ramirezs application was time-barred and did not raise a new ground of fact or law exempting his application from the statute of limitations. Ramirez appeals the decision of the district court.

III. Standard of review

We review district court rulings on summary disposition of PCR applications for the correction of legal error. Allison, 914 N.W.2d at 870.

IV. Discussion

Ramirez hopes to use the Allison exception to avoid the three-year statute of limitations on PCR applications. Iowa Code section 822.3 (2019) requires a PCR application “be filed within three years from the date the conviction or decision is final or, in the event of an appeal from the date the writ of procedendo is issued.” Procedendo issued following Ramirezs direct appeal on December 12, 2000. His current PCR action began in June 2019, fifteen years after the statute of limitations expired. See Iowa Code § 822.3.

Allison, decided in June 2018, permits a PCR application filed outside the statute of limitations to “relate back” to a prior application.

Id. The ruling in Allison “allow[s] a second PCR application to relate back to the time of filing the first PCR where three conditions existed.” See Polk v. State, No. 18-0309, 2019 WL 3945964, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2019) (citing Allison, 914 N.W.2d at 890). First, the original PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel had to be timely filed per section 822.3. Id. Second, the successive PCR petition must allege PCR counsel was ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Id. Finally, the successive petition must be “filed promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR action.” Id.

This court elaborated on the Allison framework, determining an application filed six months after Allison was decided “does not fit the definition of prompt.” Demery v. State, No. 19-1465, 2020 WL 1887955, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2020) (quoting Polk, 2019 WL 3945964, at *2); see also Harlston v. State, No. 19-0627, 2020 WL 4200859, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 22, 2020) (concluding petitioners second application filed more than six months after the conclusion of his first PCR application was not promptly filed as provided in Allison).

Here, Ramirez filed his present PCR application forty-four months after the conclusion of his third PCR. We conclude this interval cannot be described as prompt. Indeed, even if, for the sake of argument, we could toll Ramirezs PCR action from the time of the Allison decision, his application was filed about twelve months after Allison and cannot be described as promptly filed. Accordingly, the district court correctly dismissed Ramirezs current application.

V. Conclusion

Ramirezs current PCR application is untimely and the decision of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

I am pleased to join the majoritys well-written opinion. As the majority properly concludes, Ramirez cannot benefit from Allison v. State’s relation-back doctrine because his present PCR application was not “filed promptly after the conclusion of [his] first PCR action.” 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018). This alone provides ample grounds to affirm.

I write separately to mention another reason to affirm. This court has repeatedly held that “Allison only applies to a ‘second PCR petition.’ ” Dixon v. State, No. 19-1886, 2021 WL 1907152, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 12, 2021) (quoting Allison, 914 N.W.2d at 891) (collecting cases), further review denied (July 7, 2021); see also Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 525 (Iowa 2018) (“In Allison, we adopted a relation-back doctrine to the statutory period of limitation under section 822.3 when an applicant alleges in a second PCR proceeding brought outside the three-year time frame that the attorney in the first PCR proceeding was ineffective in presenting the same claim as raised in the second proceeding.”). And so we have “repeatedly held Allison does not apply to third or subsequent PCR actions.” Harrington v. State, No. 19-1102, 2021 WL 210976, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021) (collecting cases), further review denied (Apr. 1, 2021). The present case involves Ramirezs fourth PCR application. So Allison does not apply.

FOOTNOTES

. Section 822.3 was amended, effective July 1, 2019, to effectively abrogate the Allison relation-back doctrine. See Stone v. State, No. 20-1056, 2021 WL 3395045, at *1 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 4, 2021) (citing 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 149, § 8).

DANILSON, Senior Judge.

Ahlers, J., concurs; May, P.J, concurs specially.