Esteban Velazquez-Ramirez v. State of Iowa
973 N.W.2d 598
| Iowa Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Velazquez-Ramirez was convicted of first-degree murder by jury in 2004; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and procedendo issued in 2006.
- He filed a first postconviction-relief (PCR) action that was denied and affirmed on appeal; procedendo issued in 2012.
- He filed a second PCR application in June 2018, invoking a 2017 change in law (State v. Jonas) and claiming timeliness under Iowa Code § 822.3’s exception for new grounds of law.
- The State moved to dismiss; the district court treated the motion as one for summary judgment and dismissed the second PCR as untimely.
- Velazquez-Ramirez argued Jonas created a new, retroactive rule that made his filing timely and alternatively relied on Allison v. State to have the second petition relate back if filed promptly after the first PCR.
- The court held Jonas is procedural and not retroactive, Allison’s relation-back applies only to second petitions filed promptly after the first (he waited six years), and no watershed exception was shown; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2018 PCR was timely because Jonas (2017) created a new ground of law | Jonas announced a new rule in 2017; PCR filed within three years of Jonas so timely under § 822.3 exception | Jonas is a procedural rule governing jury selection and does not apply retroactively; therefore it cannot revive a decades-old conviction | Denied — Jonas is procedural and not retroactive; cannot be used to make the 2018 filing timely |
| Whether Allison allows the second PCR to relate back to the first PCR based on timing | Allison permits relation back of successive PCRs; Velazquez-Ramirez contends the second petition should relate back to the first because Allison is a new ground | Allison only permits relation back if the successive petition is filed promptly after the first; a six-year delay is not prompt | Denied — petitioner did not file promptly after first PCR, so Allison does not apply |
| Whether a "watershed" procedural exception saves the petition | Impliedly argues exceptional retroactivity might apply | Watershed exception is essentially moribund and petitioner made no argument Jonas is watershed | Denied — no argument Jonas is a watershed change and Edwards indicates the watershed exception is not viable |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jonas, 904 N.W.2d 566 (Iowa 2017) (announcing rule requiring reversal when certain for-cause challenges are wrongly denied and additional peremptory is requested and denied)
- Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866 (Iowa 2018) (successive PCR alleging ineffective postconviction counsel may relate back to a timely first PCR if filed promptly after the first action)
- Thongvanh v. State, 938 N.W.2d 2 (Iowa 2020) (new procedural rules generally do not apply retroactively)
- Edwards v. Vannoy, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (2021) (explaining the "watershed" procedural-rule exception is effectively moribund)
- Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (discussing retroactivity limits for new constitutional rules)
- Nguyen v. State, 829 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for PCR appeals is correction of legal error)
- Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (requires a nexus between asserted ground and the challenged conviction)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (landmark ineffective-assistance-of-counsel ruling cited in retroactivity analyses)