Chester Greenup, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-0826

Chester Greenup was convicted of first-degree kidnapping in 1998; conviction affirmed on direct appeal and procedendo issued September 27, 2000.
Greenup filed a first postconviction-relief (PCR) application in 2001; it was denied and that denial was affirmed on appeal in 2008.
On June 25, 2015, Greenup filed a second PCR application challenging the victim’s photographic identification and alleging ineffective assistance of PCR counsel for failing to challenge that identification.
The Polk County district court summarily dismissed the 2015 application as barred by the three-year statute of limitations in Iowa Code § 822.3.
The district court also relied on the prior adjudication bar in Iowa Code § 822.8 because an identification-suppression claim had been litigated in the first PCR proceeding.
Greenup appealed; the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Greenup’s ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claim escapes § 822.3 limitations	Greenup: PCR counsel were ineffective for not challenging the photo identification, so claim should proceed despite delay	State: Claim is barred by the three-year limitations from procedendo; no applicable exception raised	Held: Barred by § 822.3; ineffective assistance of PCR counsel is not a factual ground that tolls the limit (per precedent)
Whether the identification claim is precluded as previously adjudicated	Greenup: Seeks to relitigate the identification challenge	State: Identification suppression was litigated in prior PCR and is barred by res judicata/statutory preclusion	Held: Precluded under § 822.8 because the issue was finally adjudicated in the earlier PCR

Dible v. State, 557 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 1996) (ineffective assistance of postconviction-relief counsel is not a ground of fact to avoid § 822.3 statute-of-limitations)
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (abrogated Dible on other grounds)