Francisco Villa Magana v. State of Iowa, 908 N.W.2d 255

Francisco Villa Magana pled guilty in 2011 to offenses related to sex offender registry violations; his sentence was affirmed on direct appeal.
He filed a postconviction relief (PCR) application on October 17, 2012; multiple continuances and attorney withdrawals followed, and a December 11, 2014 pretrial conference resulted in the court extending the rule 1.944 trial deadline to December 31, 2015 and ordering counsel to trigger rescheduling after resolution of a possible new-trial motion in the underlying case.
The PCR matter remained inactive from December 11, 2014 until the clerk issued another rule 1.944 notice July 15, 2015; the district court dismissed the PCR for want of prosecution on January 8, 2016.
Villa moved to reinstate in June 2016, citing oversight, counsel’s military duty during the dismissal, and a Padilla claim (failure to advise re: immigration consequences); the district court denied reinstatement and the court of appeals affirmed.
On further review the Iowa Supreme Court concluded Villa’s PCR counsel was effectively absent during the dormancy and that Lado v. State controlled, requiring reversal of the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of motion to reinstate PCR after rule 1.944 dismissal was erroneous	Villa: dismissal resulted from oversight/reasonable cause (counsel on military duty) and reinstatement within 180 days was proper; alternatively, PCR counsel was ineffective under Lado	State: dismissal was not oversight but caused by inaction; Villa waived new ineffective-assistance claim by raising it first in reply; relief would undermine rule 1.944	Court: Vacated appellate decision; held Lado controls—constructive absence of PCR counsel is structural error requiring reversal and reinstatement; considered Lado argument despite late raising because State anticipated it and issue is structural
Whether ineffective assistance of PCR counsel requires showing prejudice when 1.944 dismissal occurs	Villa: counsel’s failure to avoid dismissal was ineffective and merits reversal	State: plaintiff did not raise ineffective assistance timely; reversing would create per se rule undermining 1.944	Court: Following Lado, this is structural error; prejudice need not be shown; reversal required

Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (PCR counsel’s failure to prevent 1.944 dismissal is structural error requiring reversal)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2010) (counsel must advise of immigration consequences of a guilty plea)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for PCR denials)
Carroll v. State, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (issues generally not considered if first raised in reply brief; exception discussed)
Lyle v. State, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014) (identified circumstances where late-raised issues may be considered)