James Edward Winesberry, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-2058

Winesberry pled guilty (Dec 2013) to multiple controlled-substance and weapons offenses and received consecutive sentences totalling up to 35 years.
On direct appeal (Feb–Nov 2014) he argued trial counsel failed to challenge the factual basis for his pleas; this court affirmed.
Winesberry filed a pro se postconviction relief (PCR) application (Feb 2015) reasserting the same ineffective-assistance/factual-basis claims.
PCR counsel was appointed and ordered to investigate and, if needed, file an amended application within 60 days; scheduling ordered pleadings 60 days before trial and discovery completed 30 days before trial.
The State moved for summary judgment (Aug 2015) arguing res judicata; Winesberry’s counsel filed a late resistance asserting summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete and counsel anticipated amending.
The district court granted summary judgment (Nov 6, 2015). Winesberry appealed, arguing premature summary judgment and ineffective assistance of PCR counsel for failing to timely amend.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred by granting summary judgment before discovery was complete	Winesberry: summary judgment was premature because discovery was incomplete and counsel expected to amend the PCR application	State: claims were previously adjudicated on direct appeal (res judicata); plaintiff failed to follow the rule to request additional discovery and time	No error; summary judgment proper. Winesberry failed to file the required rule 1.981(6) affidavit or request an extension and did not show what discovery would produce to defeat summary judgment
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for failing to timely amend the application	Winesberry: counsel breached duty by not amending by the court-ordered deadline, causing prejudice (including loss of 27 days toward a habeas limitations period)	State: Winesberry does not identify claims omitted or show a reasonable probability of a different result; alleged lost days are speculative and not shown to have caused actual prejudice	Ineffective-assistance claim denied for lack of prejudice. Court need not decide deficient performance because Winesberry failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes deficient-performance and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for PCR proceedings and constitutional claims)
Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 2002) (summary judgment standard applies to PCR motions)
Bitner v. Ottumwa Cmty. Sch. Dist., 549 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1996) (a party must comply with rule requiring affidavit showing what discovery is needed to oppose summary judgment)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (prejudice can be dispositive in ineffective-assistance analysis)
Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (res judicata bars relitigation in PCR of issues decided on direct appeal)