Montrell Anderson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-0394

Anderson convicted of third-degree sexual abuse at jury trial and sentenced May 30, 2007; conviction affirmed on direct appeal in 2008.
Anderson filed a second PCR application on May 28, 2015 — roughly seven years after procedendo — well beyond the three-year limit in Iowa Code § 822.3.
The State moved to dismiss the PCR application as time-barred on January 19, 2016; Anderson did not file a resistance to that motion.
On February 1, 2016 the PCR court dismissed the application as time-barred without a hearing; the dismissal used a template order with some incorrect boilerplate language.
Anderson moved to enlarge/amend, arguing the court violated Iowa Code § 822.6 by dismissing without notice or an opportunity to reply; the PCR court explained § 822.6’s summary-disposition notice requirement applies only to court-initiated merit dismissals, not to dismissals under § 822.3 for untimeliness.
The appellate court affirmed, concluding the dismissal was proper under § 822.3 because Anderson’s filing was untimely and he neither identified a timeliness exception nor resisted the State’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 822.6 notice/reply requirements apply when dismissing a PCR as time-barred under § 822.3	Anderson: Court erred by dismissing without indicating intent or giving opportunity to reply under § 822.6	State/PCR court: § 822.6 applies to court-initiated summary merit dismissals, not to dismissals for untimeliness under § 822.3; motion to dismiss may be granted if applicant fails to resist	Held: § 822.6 requirements do not apply; dismissal under § 822.3 was permissible without the § 822.6 notice/reply procedure
Whether Anderson’s PCR application was timely or saved by an exception	Anderson: Alludes to a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised earlier (implying an exception)	State: Application is untimely and no specific exception or new evidence/law is alleged or shown	Held: Application is untimely (filed ~7 years after procedendo); no adequate showing of an exception, so dismissal affirmed

Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 2002) (explaining § 822.6 summary-disposition procedures and notice/reply requirement for court-initiated dismissals)
Brown v. State, 589 N.W.2d 273 (Iowa 1998) (court may summarily dismiss when motion to dismiss is properly served and nonmoving party fails to timely respond)