Napoleon Hartsfield, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
15-1702
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- In August 2001 Hartsfield was encountered by police and cited for possession of crack cocaine after officers observed him drop a paper that tested positive for cocaine; he was later arrested on a separate delivery charge in October 2001.
- Hartsfield pleaded guilty to possession (October 2001) and was later convicted by jury of delivery (trial information filed October 18, 2001). Procedendo issued February 2003.
- Hartsfield filed a first postconviction-relief (PCR) application, which was denied; the denial was affirmed by the court of appeals in August 2009. He contends he instructed appellate counsel to seek further review of that denial.
- Hartsfield filed the present PCR application on December 27, 2010, asserting appellate counsel was ineffective for not seeking further review—specifically to raise a speedy-indictment argument that he says Wing (decided December 2010) would support.
- The State moved to dismiss as time-barred under Iowa Code § 822.3 (three-year statute of limitations); the district court declined summary dismissal, ruled on the merits, and denied relief, finding no ineffective assistance. The court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Iowa Code § 822.3 | Hartsfield: PCR timely because claim rests on new law (Wing) decided Dec. 2010, within three years of filing | State: PCR filed well after procedendo (2003); three-year limit bars action and ineffective-assistance claims do not create an exception | Court: Untimely; Wing does not save the claim because the circumstances here do not trigger the Wing rule and postconviction counsel's conduct is not a new ground of fact |
| Ineffective assistance of appellate/postconviction counsel for failing to seek further review | Hartsfield: Appellate counsel should have sought further review to preserve a Wing-based speedy-indictment challenge; counsel’s omission prejudiced him | State: Counsel could reasonably view further review as frivolous; no prejudice shown because underlying facts are contrary to Wing | Court: No ineffective assistance—counsel not required to pursue likely-frivolous review and Hartsfield cannot show prejudice; underlying record defeats a Wing claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wing, 791 N.W.2d 243 (Iowa 2010) (announced a “reasonable-person” rule for when a warrantless encounter can be treated as an arrest for speedy-indictment purposes)
- State v. Penn‑Kennedy, 862 N.W.2d 384 (Iowa 2015) (limits Wing to suspended or delayed prosecutions; speedy‑indictment rule applies only to the offense for which the defendant was arrested)
- Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 1994) (ineffective assistance of counsel does not create an exception to the PCR statute-of-limitations)
- State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 1982) (attorney not required to predict future changes in law to provide effective assistance)
- State v. Sunclades, 305 N.W.2d 491 (Iowa 1981) (fortifies rule that the 45-day indictment period applies to the offense for which a defendant was arrested)