Deandre D. Goode v. State of Iowa, 920 N.W.2d 520

Background

DeAndre Goode was convicted of second-degree robbery after a victim identified him from a photo array and surveillance placed him at purchases made with the victim’s cards; Goode maintained an alibi based on Facebook posts.
Goode filed a pro se postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging newly discovered Facebook evidence would corroborate his alibi; the court appointed PCR counsel.
At the stipulated-record PCR proceeding, Goode’s PCR counsel did not present the Facebook evidence and instead argued trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the photo array; the district court denied relief, rejecting the Facebook-alibi and photo-array claims.
On appeal Goode argued his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to present the Facebook evidence and asked the court to remand for a new PCR hearing.
The court of appeals rejected the claim as improperly framed as a constitutional right to PCR counsel and affirmed; the Iowa Supreme Court granted review.
The Supreme Court held remand to develop an ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal is not appropriate; such claims must be brought in a separate timely PCR application (Allison relation-back principles preserved).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Goode’s claim that postconviction counsel was ineffective (for not presenting Facebook evidence) can be remedied by remand from this Court	Goode: remand to district court to develop record and present Facebook evidence supporting trial-counsel-ineffective claim; PCR counsel was constitutionally ineffective	State: claim is time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3 and cannot be cured by remand; if allowed it would circumvent limitations	Court: remand is improper for issues raised first on appeal; claimant must file a separate PCR application to pursue ineffective-assistance-of-PCR-counsel; Allison relation-back remains available if promptly filed
Whether there is a constitutional right to counsel in PCR proceedings for purposes of ineffective-assistance claims	Goode: framed claim as constitutional denial of effective PCR counsel	State: no constitutional right to PCR counsel; any right is statutory	Court: no recognized constitutional right to PCR counsel; Iowa law recognizes a statutory right and implied effectiveness standard, but the appeal’s framing did not preclude addressing the merits; nevertheless procedural appellate limits control
Whether the court of appeals properly dismissed because Goode characterized the claim as constitutional rather than statutory	Goode: characterization should not bar relief; parties understood the issue	State: characterization matters; waiver rules apply	Court: court of appeals erred in placing form over substance; mislabeling did not prejudice State, so merits could be considered but remand is not appropriate
Whether the statute of limitations (§ 822.3) bars a later PCR alleging ineffective PCR counsel and whether relation-back applies	Goode: not yet filed; seeks remand now instead	State: second PCR would be time-barred	Court: Allison allows a second PCR alleging ineffective PCR counsel to relate back to the first timely PCR if promptly filed; statute of limitations is not an absolute bar in that context

Key Cases Cited

Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (postconviction-review counsel generally not constitutionally guaranteed)
Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (circumstances where ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel may excuse procedural default)
Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa adopts relation-back doctrine for successive PCR alleging ineffective assistance of PCR counsel)
Dunbar v. State, 515 N.W.2d 12 (statutory appointment of PCR counsel and implied right to effective counsel)
Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539 (standards for reviewing PCR denials)