Timothy Palmer, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 14-1328

Timothy Palmer was convicted in 1995 of first-degree murder and first-degree robbery and sentenced to life plus 25 years; his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
Palmer filed his sixth postconviction relief (PCR) application in 2013 asserting newly available legal grounds and claiming statute-of-limitations excusal.
The State moved for summary judgment arguing Palmer’s claims were either previously raised or time-barred under the three-year PCR limitations period (Iowa Code § 822.3).
Palmer’s asserted "new law" arguments rested on (1) a 2007 clarification of joint criminal-conduct instructions (State v. Smith) and (2) post-trial developments governing access to mental-health records (State v. Cashen and Iowa Code § 622.10(4)(a)).
The district court granted summary judgment, finding Smith and Cashen did not create new substantive law and Palmer’s claims were time-barred; Palmer’s ineffective-assistance argument did not toll the limitations period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Smith created new law excusing PCR time bar	Smith established a new required element for joint criminal-conduct instructions not available at trial	Smith was a clarification of preexisting law and not a change that tolls the statute	Denied — Smith is a clarification; claims were time-barred
Access to witness mental-health records (Cashen / §622.10(4)(a))	Post-trial changes (Cashen, statute) created new procedures enabling records discovery, excusing delay	Cashen/statute only prescribed procedures; mental-health records were available earlier; not new substantive law	Denied — procedures not new law; claim time-barred
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel tolls the 3-year limitation	Counsel’s failure to obtain records/raise issues prevented timely filing	Ineffective-assistance claim does not excuse the statutory time bar	Denied — ineffective assistance does not save late PCRs
Procedural adequacy of summary judgment disposition	Palmer objected to summary disposition, claiming denied motions and insufficient time	State invoked summary judgment under Iowa Code §822.6; court allowed resistance and judicial notice of records	Denied — summary judgment appropriate; procedures adequate

State v. Palmer, 569 N.W.2d 614 (Iowa Ct. App.) (direct appeal affirming convictions)
State v. Smith, 739 N.W.2d 289 (Iowa 2007) (clarified joint criminal-conduct instruction language for future cases)
State v. Cashen, 789 N.W.2d 400 (Iowa 2010) (addressed procedures for accessing privileged mental-health records)
State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006) (felony-murder and related instruction law referenced)
Nguyen v. State, 829 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2013) (example where court found a change in law that affected PCR timeliness)
Whitsel v. State, 525 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1994) (ineffective-assistance claim does not toll PCR limitation)
State v. Hohle, 510 N.W.2d 847 (Iowa 1994) (prior articulation of joint-conduct concept)
Chidester v. Needles, 353 N.W.2d 849 (Iowa 1984) (recognition that mental-health records could be available pre-Cashen)