Roger Joseph Hoffert, Jr. v. State of Iowa, 19-1755

Hoffert was charged with a class D felony for introducing Seroquel (quetiapine) into the Black Hawk County Jail; he pleaded guilty, received a suspended sentence and probation, and later was incarcerated after probation revocation.
Hoffert filed a pro se postconviction relief (PCR) petition arguing Seroquel is not a controlled substance and his guilty plea was therefore invalid; he later alleged actual innocence.
After a bench PCR trial, the district court found Seroquel is not a controlled substance, concluded Hoffert’s plea was flawed, granted PCR relief, and ordered the case returned to the criminal docket.
Hoffert appealed the PCR order seeking additional relief: declarations of actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
While the appeal was pending, the State moved to dismiss the underlying criminal case and the court dismissed it without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PCR court should have declared Hoffert actually innocent	Hoffert: court should declare actual innocence as a ground for relief	State: either moot or not preserved	Not preserved for appeal — district court did not expressly decide the claim and Hoffert failed to preserve it for review
Whether the PCR court should have declared counsel ineffective	Hoffert: needs declaration to pursue malpractice suit under Iowa Code §815.10(6)	State: claim is moot because Hoffert received full PCR relief and criminal case dismissed	Moot — Hoffert obtained the substantive relief requested and did not seek a declaratory remedy below, so the appellate court declines to decide

Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for PCR actions; constitutional claims reviewed de novo)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Schulte, 843 N.W.2d 876 (Iowa 2014) (issues must be raised and decided in district court to be preserved on appeal)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (ruling that expressly acknowledges an issue and necessarily decides it preserves error)
Rhiner v. State, 703 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2005) (appeals can be moot where the underlying controversy is resolved before review)
Crowell v. State Pub. Def., 845 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2014) (mootness doctrine for appeals that no longer present a justiciable controversy)
State v. Avalos Valdez, 934 N.W.2d 585 (Iowa 2019) (opinion’s effect on the underlying controversy is the key to mootness)
In re B.B., 826 N.W.2d 425 (Iowa 2013) (appellate review may survive mootness where collateral consequences persist)
State v. Rutledge, 600 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 1999) (issues not raised in district court cannot be raised on appeal)