Keith C. Walker, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1257

In 1990 Keith C. Walker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life; direct appeal completed in 1992.
Walker filed a timely postconviction-relief (PCR) application in July 1994 alleging juror bias and prosecutorial withholding of exculpatory evidence.
After continuances and appointment of new counsel, a notice (addressed to counsel) warned the case would be dismissed for want of prosecution if not tried before Jan. 1, 1996; the case was later dismissed under Iowa R. Civ. P. 215.1 (now rule 1.944).
Walker, claiming appointed counsel never communicated with him and effectively abandoned representation, filed a pro se reinstatement motion in Dec. 1996; the district court denied it as untimely and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed in Walker v. State.
Walker filed subsequent reinstatement attempts; in April 2016 he relied on Lado v. State (ineffective-assistance/structural-error doctrine) and Hrbek, but the district court and this court declined reinstatement, citing prior decisions, timeliness, and law-of-the-case principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walker’s PCR dismissal should be set aside because counsel’s inaction denied him effective assistance of counsel	Walker: counsel abandoned him, dismissal was due to counsel’s ineffective assistance; Lado requires reinstatement when counsel’s inaction causes dismissal	State: Walker previously litigated and lost the claim; supreme court already rejected reinstatement; dismissal notice was properly served on counsel	Court: Denied. Law-of-the-case and prior supreme court decision bar reconsideration; Lado does not revive untimely, repeatedly rejected claims
Whether a later change/clarification in controlling law (e.g., Lado) permits a new reinstatement motion despite prior final rulings and delay	Walker: Lado clarifies law and entitles him to relief despite prior rulings	State: Even if Lado clarified law, Walker’s motion is untimely and the supreme court already addressed the issue; doctrine of law of the case and statutory/precedential bars apply	Court: Denied. No exception; prior supreme court holding remains controlling and Walker’s Lado-based motion was untimely

Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248 (Iowa 2011) (failure of counsel leading to dismissal is structural error; prejudice presumed)
Walker v. State, 572 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 1997) (supreme court rejected Walker’s prior reinstatement claim)
State v. Grosvenor, 402 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 1987) (law-of-the-case doctrine described)
United Fire & Cas. Co. v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 612 N.W.2d 101 (Iowa 2000) (exception to law-of-the-case when controlling law is clarified after remand)
Nguyen v. State, 829 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2013) (timeliness considerations when new legal ground is announced)
Heemstra v. State, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (example of a new-ground-of-law decision relevant to timeliness)