Phuoc Thanh Nguyen v. State of Iowa
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 28
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Nguyen was convicted of first-degree murder in 1999 and sentenced to life without parole.
- On direct appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals summarized the trial as involving a murder committed at The Cloud bar with firearms.
- The jury was instructed under two theories: willful, deliberate, premeditated murder or participation in the terrorism (intimidation with a dangerous weapon) felony.
- Heemstra (2006) held that the predicate felony for felony-murder can merge with the murder when it is the same act and limited its prospective effect.
- Nguyen sought postconviction relief in 2009, arguing Heemstra should apply retroactively and contending the action was not time-barred by §822.3, which then governed a three-year limit.
- The district court dismissed Nguyen’s postconviction relief as time-barred, and Nguyen appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §822.3 bars Nguyen’s postconviction relief given Heemstra’s potential retroactivity. | Nguyen argues Heemstra applies retroactively and creates a ground not raisable within the original period. | State contends the three-year bar applies and Heemstra cannot retroactively alter that timeline. | Not barred; the issue falls within §822.3’s retroactivity exception. |
| Whether Heemstra should be applied retroactively in Nguyen’s case. | Nguyen asserts equal protection, due process, and separation-of-powers guarantees require retroactive application. | State argues against retroactivity and seeks other alternate grounds to affirm dismissal. | Remand to determine retroactivity under constitutional principles. |
| Whether Nguyen could raise a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within three years of conviction. | Nguyen contends the legal change in Heemstra could not be argued until 2006. | State maintains grounds could have been raised (or no longer viable) within the original period. | Court recognizes a category of grounds that could not be raised earlier and applies the exception. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (merger rule for felony-murder; limited retroactivity to the present case and those not finally resolved on direct appeal)
- Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 2009) (reaffirmed that Heemstra’s retroactivity does not violate due process)
- Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (Padilla-type clarification vs. application of existing law for retroactivity; three-year period may apply or not)