David M. Gonzales Becerra, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-2067

David Gonzales Becerra was convicted of first-degree murder for Oscar Flores’s 2003 death; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and procedendo issued February 15, 2006.
He filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application on December 5, 2013—more than three years after his conviction became final.
The district court dismissed the PCR application as untimely under Iowa Code § 822.3 (three-year statute of limitations).
Becerra argued his claims fit the statutory exception for a new ground of law that could not have been raised earlier, relying on several Iowa Supreme Court decisions (Schuler, Wyatt, Smith, Heemstra) and later authorities.
He also argued the statute of limitations does not apply to structural errors affecting the trial framework.
The court held even if some cited cases could be considered new law, Becerra filed his PCR application more than three years after those decisions and offered no valid basis to avoid the limitations bar.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the PCR application timely under § 822.3?	Becerra: filed within allowable time because new governing law made claims newly available.	State: procedendo issued 2006; application filed 2013—untimely.	Untimely; affirm dismissal.
Do cited cases constitute a new ground of law that tolled the limitations period?	Becerra: Schuler, Wyatt, Smith, Heemstra (and later cases) created new grounds precluding earlier challenge.	State: even if some decisions were new law, Becerra filed more than three years after those decisions.	Even assuming new grounds, application was filed outside three-year window and thus untimely.
Can Nguyen or Ambrose extend the limitations period or render claims timely?	Becerra: Nguyen and Ambrose support retroactive application or clarification that could revive his claims.	State: Nguyen does not extend the limitations for Heemstra-based claims; Ambrose did not decide the issue Becerra relies on.	Nguyen cannot be used to ‘‘leap‑frog’’ the statute; Ambrose is inapplicable.
Are structural errors exempt from § 822.3 limitations?	Becerra: structural-error doctrine removes the limitations bar for claims affecting trial framework.	State: Chapter 822 applies to constitutional and structural errors; statute of limitations still governs.	Rejected; statute of limitations applies to structural error claims absent new facts/new law within the statutory window.

Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for PCR proceedings)
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (review of timeliness determinations for PCR)
Heemstra v. State, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (decision relied on as possible new ground of law)
Smith v. State, 739 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2007) (interpreting law Becerra cites; later characterized as clarifying existing law)
Wyatt v. Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs., 744 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 2008) (authorities Becerra cites for new-law argument)
Schuler v. State, 774 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 2009) (authority Becerra cites; court has held it clarified rather than changed law)
Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (discussing structural-error framework)
Nguyen v. State, 829 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2013) (treated Heemstra as new law for some purposes but not a vehicle to extend § 822.3 beyond three years)
Ambrose v. State, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (post‑filing decision that did not decide the jury‑instruction question Becerra urges)