Aleksandar Ciric, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1860

Ciric was charged after a March 5, 2013 preliminary complaint; a trial information was filed April 3, 2013 charging burglary (3rd), burglar’s tools, and theft (2nd); minutes of testimony were attached.
Ciric filed a pro se motion to dismiss claiming the copy he received lacked a judge’s signature; the court denied it after finding the filed information was signed.
Defense sought depositions; trial was continued from June 24 to June 26 to allow depositions, which were completed on June 25; jury selection began June 26.
On June 27 Ciric pled guilty to third-degree burglary and third-degree theft; counts for burglar’s tools were dismissed; sentences run consecutively; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
Ciric filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging ineffective assistance: counsel delayed depositions, failed to move to dismiss the information as defective, and failed to move to dismiss for speedy-trial violation; he also moved to find the State in default for a late answer.
The district court denied default and denied PCR on the merits, finding (1) the information was properly signed and the objection meritless, (2) the 90-day speedy-trial period ran from the information (April 3) so trial was timely, and (3) counsel was adequately prepared and Ciric failed to show prejudice from any alleged deficiency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether State was in default for untimely answer to PCR	Ciric: State failed to timely answer, so should be in default	State: Default rule not applied in PCR; PCR decided on merits even without answer	Denied; default inapplicable; no abuse of discretion denying default
Whether counsel was ineffective for late depositions	Ciric: Delay in depositions showed lack of preparation and caused him to plead guilty	State: Depositions completed before trial; counsel prepared; Ciric chose plea	Denied; no breach of duty and no showing he would have insisted on trial
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss trial information as defective (unsigned copy)	Ciric: Information he received lacked judge's signature so counsel should have moved to dismiss	State: Filed information in court file was signed and complied with rule; objection was meritless	Denied; objection meritless and counsel not ineffective; issue previously litigated and rejected
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to dismiss for speedy-trial violation	Ciric: 90-day speedy period began at preliminary complaint (Mar 5) and expired before trial	State: Rule 2.33 runs from indictment/trial information; information filed April 3, trial within 90 days	Denied; motion would have been meritless because time ran from the information, not the preliminary complaint

Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613 (Iowa 1974) (default procedures not used in PCR; merits review appropriate)
Thomas v. State, 220 N.W.2d 874 (Iowa 1974) (PCR considered on merits even without State answer)
Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: duty and prejudice)
State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52 (Iowa 1992) (burden on applicant to prove ineffective assistance by preponderance)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (when defendant pleads guilty, must show reasonable probability he would have gone to trial to prove prejudice)
State v. Lopez, 872 N.W.2d 159 (Iowa 2015) (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise meritless objections)
State v. Lies, 566 N.W.2d 507 (Iowa 1997) (rule 2.33’s “indictment” includes trial information)
State v. Petersen, 678 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2004) (preliminary complaint and trial information serve separate functions)