Vincent A. Ramos, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1757

Vincent Ramos was convicted in 2003 of first-degree kidnapping and later filed a 2015 postconviction relief (PCR) application challenging his conviction.
Ramos argued the jury instructions were defective for failing to include Rich-style "intensifier" language (e.g., "substantially" or "significantly") and that State v. Robinson changed the law to restart the three-year PCR limitations period.
Ramos also alleged ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to object to the instructions and raise the issue earlier.
The PCR court rejected Ramos’s statute-of-limitations argument and found Robinson did not provide relief because, on the record here, confinement evidence met the Rich standard (confinement exceeded that incidental to sexual abuse and had independent significance).
The court concluded Ramos could not show prejudice from any alleged instruction error given extensive evidence of beating, threats with knife and shotgun, binding with duct tape, barricading, and prolonged confinement over several days; the court affirmed the denial of PCR relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Robinson restarts the PCR limitations period	Robinson changed/clarified law and thus restarts the 3-year limitations period	Robinson clarified existing law and does not create a new exception to §822.3 time bar	Court rejected limitation-period argument; Robinson does not restart limitations
Whether jury instructions were defective for lacking Rich/Robinson language	Instruction should have included "substantially"/"significantly" language per Rich/Robinson	Instructions were adequate; any missing words would not have mattered given facts	Court found no reversible error; instructions would not have changed outcome
Ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to instructions	Counsel breached duty by failing to challenge the instructions	Even if breached, no prejudice because outcome would be the same under the facts	Ineffectiveness claim fails for lack of prejudice
Whether factual insufficiency of confinement exists under Robinson/Rich	Ramos argued confinement might have been only incidental to sexual abuse as in Robinson	State and PCR court argued confinement here was substantial and independent of sexual abuse	Court found confinement was sufficient to satisfy Rich; Robinson distinguishes and does not help Ramos

State v. Rich, 305 N.W.2d 739 (Iowa 1981) (defines kidnapping "confinement or removal" must exceed that incidental to sexual abuse and may be shown by increased risk of harm, lessened detection, or facilitated escape)
State v. Robinson, 859 N.W.2d 464 (Iowa 2015) (clarifies application of Rich and explains possible remedies when confinement evidence is insufficient)
Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134 (Iowa 2001) (ineffective-assistance claims reviewed de novo; sets Strickland-type test)
Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012) (standard of review for PCR denials)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (reiterates that ineffective-assistance PCR applicants must show breach and prejudice)
State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (example of denying ineffective-assistance claim where prejudice not shown)