Montrell Deshone Anderson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 16-1001

Montrell Anderson was convicted in 2005 of first-degree burglary and second-degree sexual abuse after a jury trial; direct appeal affirmed and procedendo issued April 30, 2007.
Anderson filed a first postconviction relief (PCR) application raising ineffective-assistance claims; it was denied and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
Anderson filed a second PCR application on January 23, 2012, nearly five years after procedendo; the State moved to dismiss in January 2016 as time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3.
Anderson sought to amend his second application to allege newly discovered evidence concerning his right/title to occupy the premises, a recantation by the victim, and pressure on the victim by police/prosecutors; he did not invoke the statutory exception for evidence or law that could not have been raised earlier.
The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal, concluding the application was time-barred and its claims previously litigated; Anderson appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether second PCR is time-barred or fits § 822.3 exception	Anderson: alleges newly discovered evidence about occupancy/right to premises and other facts that couldn’t have been raised earlier	State: application filed after three-year limit and no showing it meets the exception for newly discovered fact or law	Court: Time-barred; Anderson failed to show exception applies
Whether alleged "new evidence" qualifies as newly discovered evidence	Anderson: new evidence proves his right/title to occupy premises and would affect conviction	State: Anderson didn’t show the evidence was discovered after verdict, not discoverable earlier with due diligence, material, or likely to change outcome	Court: Anderson failed to satisfy Harrington factors; evidence not shown to be newly discovered
Whether ineffective-assistance claims excuse the statute-of-limitations bar	Anderson: asserts ineffective assistance by trial and prior PCR counsel should be considered	State: ineffective assistance is not an exception to § 822.3	Court: Rejects argument; ineffective assistance does not toll or create exception (Walker)
Whether summary dismissal was improper because factual development was needed	Anderson: sought opportunity to develop ineffective-assistance and new-evidence claims	State: procedural bar and prior litigation precludes relief; no genuine issue of material fact shown	Court: Summary dismissal proper under § 822.6; no genuine issue of material fact

Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for summary dismissal of PCR applications)
Walker v. State, 572 N.W.2d 589 (Iowa 1997) (ineffective assistance of counsel does not create an exception to the PCR statute-of-limitations)
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003) (four-factor test for newly discovered evidence in PCR context)
Cornell v. State, 529 N.W.2d 606 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994) (burden on applicant to show PCR exception applies)