Thomas Ray Davis v. State of Iowa, 20-0551

In 2006 Davis was convicted of four counts of third-degree sexual abuse and sentenced to four concurrent 25-year terms with an 85% mandatory minimum enhanced under Iowa Code § 901A.2(3); a lifetime special sentence under chapter 903B was also imposed.
Davis’s direct appeal was affirmed and procedendo issued in 2008. He filed an initial PCR within the limitations period; that PCR was dismissed and the dismissal affirmed on appeal.
In 2017 Davis successfully moved to correct an illegal sentence as to the chapter 903B special sentence (ex post facto); that portion was vacated and he was resentenced in August 2018 (no special sentence) but the § 901A.2(3) enhancement remained in place.
Davis later moved to correct sentence again, arguing the § 901A.2(3) enhancement was improper; the district court treated it as a de facto appeal and eventually denied the motion on remand; Davis did not appeal that denial.
In August 2019 Davis filed a third PCR alleging ineffective assistance by resentencing counsel for failing to challenge the § 901A.2(3) enhancement; the State moved to dismiss as untimely under Iowa Code § 822.3 and the district court dismissed the PCR as time-barred.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding the resentencing did not restart the § 822.3 clock and that Davis’s claim was a procedural sentencing objection that should have been raised earlier, so his application was untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Davis’s challenge to the § 901A.2(3) enhancement at resentencing is exempt from the § 822.3 PCR time bar (i.e., constitutes an "illegal sentence" challenge that can be raised anytime)	Davis: resentencing court failed to conduct a full colloquy on his prior conviction, so the court lacked authority to impose the enhancement and the sentence is illegal and not time-barred	State: the defect is a procedural sentencing error (not an illegal sentence); objections had to be raised earlier and the § 822.3 limitations period applies	The court held the claim is time-barred. A defective sentencing procedure is not an "illegal sentence" that avoids § 822.3; resentencing did not restart the limitations period and Davis’s PCR was untimely.

Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 2011) (standard of review for postconviction proceedings)
Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2001) (defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal sentence)
State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (illegal-sentence review is to correct unauthorized sentences, not to relitigate prior procedural errors)
Sahinovic v. State, 940 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2020) (resentencing does not restart the § 822.3 limitations clock)