James E. Wright, Jr., Applicant-Appellee v. State of Iowa, 16-0275

Background

In 2000 James Wright was tried for first-degree murder after the shooting death of Ollie Talton; the jury received instructions on premeditated murder and felony murder using willful injury as the predicate felony.
Wright did not object to the felony-murder instruction at trial; the jury returned a general guilty verdict and Wright appealed.
While Wright’s direct appeal was pending the Iowa Supreme Court decided Heemstra, which held willful injury cannot serve as the predicate for felony murder when the same act causes both the injury and death, and limited its retroactive application to cases not finally resolved on direct appeal in which the issue was raised in the district court.
Wright’s conviction was affirmed on appeal; he later filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application alleging ineffective assistance for failing to object and asserting Heemstra should apply to all cases pending on appeal (equal protection/due process).
The PCR court granted relief, vacating Wright’s conviction and ordering a new trial on equal protection and due process grounds; the State appealed.
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Wright was not similarly situated to preserved-error appellants, Heemstra’s limited retroactivity was permissible, and Wright’s ineffective-assistance and unanimity claims failed or were unpreserved.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Retroactivity / Equal Protection: should Heemstra apply to all cases pending on appeal regardless of preservation?	Wright: equal protection requires Heemstra be applied to all nonfinal cases pending on direct appeal so similarly situated defendants are treated alike.	State: Heemstra lawfully limited retroactivity to cases where the issue was preserved; unpreserved appellants are not similarly situated.	Reversed PCR court: defendants who preserved the issue are not "similarly situated" to those who failed to preserve it; limiting Heemstra was constitutional.
Retroactivity / Due Process: does due process require Heemstra be applied to Wright’s unpreserved, pending appeal case?	Wright: due process (and Montgomery) require retroactive effect of substantive rules.	State: Heemstra is a state-law substantive change (not constitutional), and Iowa precedent permits limited retroactivity; due process does not require extension to unpreserved claims.	Reversed PCR court: due process does not require Heemstra apply where the issue was not preserved; no constitutional right to revive waived/unpreserved claims.
Ineffective assistance — trial counsel failed to object to felony-murder instruction (merger issue)	Wright: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the instruction, which Heemstra later held erroneous.	State: pre-Heemstra precedent uniformly rejected merger argument; counsel had no duty to anticipate the change.	Affirmed denial: counsel not ineffective because prevailing precedent made an objection meritless; summary judgment on this claim was proper.
Ineffective assistance — appellate counsel failed to seek limited remand and trial counsel failed to object to unanimity instruction	Wright: counsel should have sought limited remand to preserve Heemstra and objected to jury unanimity instruction and prosecutor comments.	State: no preserved error; limited remand would not revive a time-barred posttrial motion; unanimity claim foreclosed by precedent and Schad.	Reversed PCR court: claim on remand not preserved and would fail as meritless; unanimity/instruction claim fails under controlling precedent and was unpreserved.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (held willful injury cannot be predicate felony for felony murder when same act causes death and limited retroactivity to cases where issue was preserved)
Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 2009) (held Heemstra was a change in law and counsel cannot be ineffective for failing to foresee it; Heemstra not retroactive to cases already final)
Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314 (1987) (federal rule of retroactivity to all cases pending on direct review where error preserved)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (addressed retroactivity of new substantive constitutional rules; distinguished here because Heemstra is state-law change)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21 (1973) (states may define retroactivity of their own decisions)
State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2001) (ineffective-assistance standard cited by Iowa courts)
Taft v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 828 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 2013) (issues implicating constitutional rights must be presented to district court to preserve error)