Aki Malik Ross, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1103

On March 30, 2011, Aki Ross fired a .45 caliber handgun during an altercation on Pershing Avenue in Davenport; Joevante Howard was struck in the head and killed.
Police recovered eight .45 caliber cartridge cases (all from the same firearm) and one .40 caliber case; Ross admitted possessing a .45 semi-automatic that day.
A jury convicted Ross of voluntary manslaughter and five counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon; the Iowa Court of Appeals initially affirmed.
The Iowa Supreme Court on further review concluded only two separate acts of intimidation occurred and vacated three of the intimidation convictions. Ross was resentenced to consecutive ten-year terms for the remaining convictions.
Ross sought postconviction relief (PCR), arguing the two remaining intimidation convictions should merge with the manslaughter conviction under merger doctrine; the PCR court denied relief.
On appeal from the PCR denial, Ross additionally argued the two intimidation convictions should merge into one; the court rejected this as both procedurally unpreserved and foreclosed by law of the case.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the two remaining intimidation-with-a-dangerous-weapon convictions must merge into the manslaughter conviction	Ross: the intimidation convictions are subsumed by manslaughter (citing Love)	State: intimidation convictions are not lesser-included offenses of manslaughter; merger doctrine inapplicable	Court: merger doctrine limited to lesser-included offenses; convictions do not merge into manslaughter — PCR denied
Whether the two intimidation convictions should merge into a single intimidation conviction	Ross: only one criminal act supports the two counts	State: prior supreme court ruling found two separate acts; law of the case bars re-litigating	Court: argument barred by law of the case and not preserved for appeal; claim rejected
Whether the Iowa Supreme Court improperly decided factual question about number of acts (depriving jury)	Ross: supreme court cannot substitute for jury on distinct-act determination	State: supreme court already addressed whether separate acts existed on direct appeal	Court: supreme court decision on direct appeal is binding under law-of-the-case; Ross cannot relitigate
Preservation / ineffective assistance basis for raising new appellate argument in PCR appeal	Ross: (did not raise below)	State: issue not raised in PCR court and no ineffective-assistance claim made	Court: issue not preserved and no ineffective-assistance claim; appellate review denied

State v. Ross, 845 N.W.2d 692 (Iowa 2014) (supreme court addressed whether multiple distinct acts supported multiple intimidation convictions)
State v. Love, 858 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 2015) (merger applies when one offense is a lesser-included offense and jury not asked to find separate acts)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (appellate issues must be raised and decided in district court to be considered on appeal)
Lee v. State, 874 N.W.2d 631 (Iowa 2016) (law-of-the-case doctrine binds later proceedings to prior appellate determinations)