Pedro Perez-Fuentes, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-0584

Perez-Fuentes was convicted of first-degree murder in 2006 and affirmed on direct appeal.
He previously pursued two pro se or counseled postconviction relief (PCR) applications, with dismissals affirmed on appeal.
Perez-Fuentes filed his current PCR on October 16, 2014, alleging multiple ineffective-assistance claims and Vienna Convention concerns.
The State moved to dismiss on February 23, 2015, arguing time-bar under Iowa Code § 822.3.
A hearing was held March 23, 2015; Perez-Fuentes was absent, and his counsel stated he was waiving presence.
The district court dismissed as time-barred and the court noted the Vienna Convention issue had not been preserved or timely raised.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dismissal was proper under the PCR statute of limitations.	Perez-Fuentes argues the State failed to timely plead the time bar.	State properly raised the time-bar defense in a motion to dismiss, based on § 822.3.	Yes, dismissal proper; time-bar supports dismissal.
Whether PCR counsel was ineffective for not preserving error about dismissal/responding.	Counsel failed to preserve error and respond to the dismissal ruling.	No prejudice; applicant could reply pro se and claims are time-barred regardless.	No ineffective-assistance; no prejudice established.
Whether waiving the applicant's presence at the hearing violated due process.	Waiver deprived Perez-Fuentes of opportunity to testify and participate.	No prejudice; absence did not affect outcome given the time-bar is dispositive.	No reversible error; absence not prejudicial.
Whether the Vienna Convention claim was preserved and properly analyzed.	Counsel's incompetence preserved the Vienna Convention issue for review.	Vienna Convention issue was not properly preserved as a direct claim; time-bar remains.	Time-bar remains; Vienna Convention issue dismissed along with untimely claims.

Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707 (Iowa 1989) (statute-of-limitations defense must be affirmatively asserted)
Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822 (Iowa 1994) (ineffective-assistance claims do not create exception to time-bar)
Gamble v. State, 723 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 2006) (postconviction applicant may file resistance and other documents; extensive pro se participation)
Leonard v. State, 461 N.W.2d 465 (Iowa 1990) (pro se participation and filings in PCR proceedings)
Fryer v. State, 325 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 1982) (preservation rules for issues not raised on direct appeal)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (ineffective assistance claims and preservation under § 822.8)
State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel can provide sufficient reason for new PCR application)
Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016) (preservation/merit of issues on appellate review in PCR context)
Webb v. State, 555 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1996) (due process considerations for presence at PCR hearings)