Eric Bonita Peppers v. State of Iowa, 20-0966

Eric Peppers was convicted in 2000 of second-degree sexual abuse, domestic abuse assault with a weapon, and false imprisonment; procedendo issued in 2001.
On direct appeal the court preserved a speedy-trial claim for postconviction relief (PCR); Peppers then filed multiple PCR applications (2002, 2012, 2014) that were dismissed as untimely or waived.
In June 2019 Peppers filed his fourth PCR application asserting (1) ineffective assistance of prior PCR counsel under Allison v. State and (2) newly discovered evidence (victim recantation).
The State moved for summary disposition based on the three-year statute of limitations; the district court dismissed the 2019 application as untimely, finding it not filed "promptly" within the meaning of Allison.
On appeal the court observed Peppers failed to preserve a discrete claim that Allison constitutes a new ground of law restarting the limitations clock but addressed the merits and held Allison does not save his fourth, untimely application.
The court noted Allison applies to a timely second PCR alleging prior PCR counsel was ineffective and requires prompt filing after conclusion of the first PCR; Peppers’s multiple multi-year gaps (procedendo 2008 to 2019) were not prompt, so his claim is time-barred.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Allison restarts the 3-year limitations or allows relation-back for Peppers’s claim	Allison is a change in law that restarted the three-year limitations, so Peppers had three years after Allison to file	Allison does not apply to Peppers’s fourth/successive application; claim is time-barred	Allison does not save Peppers: it applies to a second PCR alleging prior PCR counsel ineffective and requires prompt filing; Peppers’s fourth petition is untimely
Whether Peppers preserved the specific argument that Allison is a new ground of law restarting the clock	Peppers preserved the issue in the district court	State contends error not preserved	Court said error was likely not preserved (district court did not rule on that precise question) but considered the merits anyway
Whether Peppers filed his successive PCR "promptly" after conclusion of the first PCR so relation-back applies	Filing within three years of Allison met promptness	Long multi-year gaps between procedendo and 2019 filing are not prompt	Not prompt; gaps (procedendo 2008 to 2019) defeat Allison’s promptness requirement

Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2018) (holds a successive PCR alleging prior PCR counsel was ineffective relates back to the original timely PCR filing if the successive petition is filed promptly after conclusion of the first PCR)
Diaz v. State, 896 N.W.2d 723 (Iowa 2017) (de novo review for ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims in PCR proceedings)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (error preservation requires raising issues and obtaining a ruling in district court before appellate review)
Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (articulates fundamental appellate error-preservation doctrine)
Top of Iowa Co-op v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454 (Iowa 2000) (explains interests protected by preservation rules and appellate review limits)
Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520 (Iowa 2018) (reiterates Allison relation-back doctrine applies when second PCR alleges prior PCR counsel ineffective in presenting the same claim)
State v. Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 2019) (statutes controlling appeals are those in effect when the judgment appealed from is rendered)