Dwayne Williams, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-0819
| Iowa Ct. App. | Aug 17, 2016Background
- Dwayne Williams convicted by jury of first-degree robbery in June 2010; conviction affirmed on direct appeal and procedendo issued Feb. 3, 2012.
- Williams filed a second application for postconviction relief (PCR) on Feb. 14, 2014, alleging ineffective assistance of trial, appellate, and initial PCR counsel.
- He asserted multiple procedural defects (unsigned information, invalid preliminary-hearing waiver, lack of arraignment, speedy‑trial violations) and alleged forgery/alteration of court records and withheld documents.
- The district court reviewed each claim, found most contradicted by the court record or unsupported by evidence, and rejected Williams’s credibility versus the presumption favoring court files.
- Williams failed to prove either deficient performance or prejudice required for an ineffective-assistance claim; the PCR denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issues waived by not raising them earlier | Williams: ineffective assistance excused earlier omission | State: claims waived under Iowa Code §822.8 | Court: error preserved because ineffective assistance can excuse prior omission; issues considered |
| Whether trial documents/procedures were defective (unsigned information, no arraignment, invalid preliminary-waiver) | Williams: information unsigned; waiver invalid; no arraignment | State: record shows information filed before preliminary hearing; records contradict claims | Court: records contradict claims; preliminary hearing not required after information filed; claims denied |
| Whether speedy-trial rules were violated (45‑day indictment; 90‑day trial; 1‑year trial) | Williams: State missed timing deadlines under rules 2.33 | State: Williams waived speedy-trial rights | Court: Williams waived the claimed speedy‑trial rights; no relief |
| Whether records were forged/withheld and whether initial PCR counsel conflicted | Williams: court records forged/altered; clerk withheld documents; first PCR counsel had undisclosed conflict | State: no proof beyond Williams’s assertions; no showing of conflict prejudice | Court: no evidentiary support; presumption of record authenticity stands; no ineffective‑assistance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation of error principles)
- Odem v. State, 483 N.W.2d 17 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (ineffective assistance can excuse failure to raise issues earlier)
- Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016) (standards of review for PCR and de novo review for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (two‑part ineffective assistance test and burden on applicant)
- Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683 (Iowa 1984) (presumption counsel competent)
- State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164 (Iowa 2011) (counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue meritless claims)
- State v. Petersen, 678 N.W.2d 611 (Iowa 2004) (effect of filing information before preliminary hearing)
- Foster v. State, 395 N.W.2d 637 (Iowa 1986) (presumption of credibility attaches to court files)