Jamie Lee Cole, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-0344
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- Jamie Lee Cole pleaded guilty in 2004 to assault with intent to commit sexual abuse and was required to register as a sex offender; he later directly appealed and lost.
- Cole filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application in 2012 raising two ineffective-assistance claims: (1) his 2004 plea counsel misadvised him about sex-offender registration; (2) his 2012 counsel misadvised him about the length of incarceration after probation revocation following a 2012 guilty plea for domestic abuse assault.
- The district court dismissed the 2004-plea claim as time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3 and denied the 2012-plea ineffective-assistance claim on the merits.
- Cole also argued PCR counsel was ineffective for not obtaining a 2012 transcript or testimony showing his 2004 counsel admitted the misadvice; he asked the court to preserve that claim for later proceedings.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo ineffective-assistance claims and affirmed: the 2004 claim was untimely and not saved by the "ground of fact" exception; the PCR-counsel-preservation request was denied; the 2012 claim failed for lack of breach and lack of prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Cole's 2004 guilty plea involuntary due to counsel's alleged misadvice about sex-offender registration? | Cole: plea counsel told him he would not have to register; thus plea not knowing/voluntary. | State: claim is time-barred; issue was known and raised on direct appeal; 2012 admission is not a new ground of fact. | Dismissed as time-barred; admission in 2012 is not an exception. |
| Does the "ground of fact" exception to the § 822.3 limitations period apply? | Cole: plea-counsel admission in 2012 is a ground of fact that could not have been raised earlier. | State: exception applies only when fact could not have been raised earlier; Cole knew the issue and raised it on appeal. | Exception inapplicable; claim could have been raised within limitations. |
| Was PCR counsel ineffective for not obtaining the 2012 transcript or calling plea counsel? | Cole: PCR counsel should have procured transcript/testimony to prove misadvice. | State: no authority to "preserve" such a claim; record adequate; even if procured, claim remains time-barred. | No relief: claim not preserved and no prejudice shown; denial affirmed. |
| Was Cole's 2012 guilty plea to domestic abuse involuntary because counsel misadvised about probation-revocation exposure? | Cole: counsel said only two suspended sentences would be imposed, resulting in three years, so he would not have pled otherwise. | State: signed plea documents and stipulation show he agreed original five-year sentences could be imposed; counsel denied the alleged promise; evidence contradicts Cole. | Denied: Cole failed to show breach or prejudice; plea agreement and record contradicted his testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (Strickland standard applied to guilty-plea prejudice)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (appellate review and deference to district-court factual findings)
- Schertz v. State, 380 N.W.2d 404 (Iowa 1985) (same standards apply to postconviction counsel claims)
- Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (interpretation of § 822.3 ground-of-fact exception)
- Jones v. State, 479 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1991) (postconviction proceedings are civil, not criminal, for preservation rules)