Eric Bonita Peppers, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-0715

Eric Peppers was convicted in 1999 of second-degree sexual abuse, domestic-abuse assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and false imprisonment; convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and procedendo issued in 2001.
On direct appeal this court preserved, for possible postconviction relief (PCR), a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to dismiss for an alleged speedy-trial violation.
Peppers filed a first PCR in 2002 raising various ineffective-assistance claims; the PCR court dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
Peppers filed a second PCR asserting a speedy-trial violation and ineffective assistance by his first PCR counsel for not raising it; the court dismissed and this court affirmed, finding the claim and its factual/legal basis were known and could have been raised earlier.
Peppers filed a third PCR again alleging a speedy-trial violation; the district court dismissed it as time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3 and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Peppers' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the third PCR application falls within §822.3’s three-year time bar exception for claims that "could not have been raised" earlier	Peppers contends ambiguity in when the limitations period starts or that the speedy-trial claim could not have been raised earlier	The claim and its factual/legal basis were available when procedendo issued; the application is untimely and not within the exception	Court held the application is time-barred; no new ground of law or fact prevented earlier raising
Whether the preserved speedy-trial/ineffective-assistance claim is revivable after prior appeals and prior PCR opportunities	Peppers argues prior counsel(s) failed to pursue the viable speedy-trial claim, so it remains cognizable now	State argues Peppers and his prior counsel had opportunity to raise/test the claim; it cannot be revived by repackaging	Court held the claim was previously available and cannot be belatedly resurrected as ineffective assistance

Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 1994) (interpreting § 822.3 exception to permit only claims that "could not" have been raised within limitations, e.g., newly discovered evidence)
Smith v. State, 542 N.W.2d 853 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (holding legal/factual underpinnings available during limitations period must be raised then and may not be delayed)