Hubert Todd, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-2121

Todd pleaded guilty to failure to comply with the sex-offender registry and was sentenced under a plea agreement.
On direct appeal Todd argued his pleas were involuntary and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to depose Jeanne Brinker; the court of appeals rejected both claims.
Todd filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging his plea was involuntary and counsel failed to investigate witnesses (Brinker and Dawn Long/Wilson); he sought leave to take depositions at State expense.
At the December 2015 hearing on the deposition request, the district court announced its intention to dismiss the PCR petition as barred by res judicata unless Todd produced new evidence showing the claims were different from those decided on direct appeal.
Todd and PCR counsel argued the sheriff’s office may have confused Todd with his nephew and that Dawn Long might have additional information; the court gave leave to file supporting materials but received nothing persuasive and dismissed the PCR application.
On appeal Todd challenged (1) alleged due-process defects in the dismissal procedure, (2) PCR counsel’s failure to object to summary dismissal, and (3) the court’s res judicata determination; the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Todd's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR court violated due process by summarily dismissing without notice/opportunity to prepare	Dismissal occurred at a deposition-only hearing without adequate notice or chance to prepare	Court followed Iowa Code §822.6 procedure and gave opportunity to reply; no preserved objection	Not preserved; district court complied with dismissal procedure and no reversible due-process error
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for not objecting to summary dismissal	Counsel should have objected to dismissal on due-process grounds	Dismissal procedure was proper; any objection would be meritless	No ineffective assistance; counsel not required to make meritless objections
Whether PCR claims were barred by res judicata	Claims based on confusion with nephew and additional witness Long are new and distinguishable	Claims re: involuntary plea and failure to depose registrar were already adjudicated on direct appeal	Claims barred by res judicata; dismissal affirmed
Whether summary dismissal without evidentiary hearing was permissible	Todd contends he needed depositions/evidence to show distinct claims	Statute allows summary dismissal when record shows applicant not entitled to relief and applicant given chance to reply	Summary dismissal appropriate; no hearing required when res judicata applies

State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2003) (issues not raised in district court cannot be raised first on appeal)
Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 2002) (§822.6 allows dismissal on court’s initiative with notice and opportunity to reply)
State v. Schaer, 757 N.W.2d 630 (Iowa 2008) (counsel has no duty to pursue meritless objections)
State v. Wetzel, 192 N.W.2d 762 (Iowa 1971) (res judicata bars relitigation of previously adjudicated issues)
State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (error-preservation rules require proper objections to preserve issues for appeal)
State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims are an exception to ordinary error-preservation rules)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (standard of review for postconviction constitutional claims)