IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 18–1911 Filed March 6, 2020 ADNAN SAHINOVIC, Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Appellee. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha J. Gronewald, Judge. An inmate seeks further review of the court of appeals’ affirmance of the denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Alexander Smith and Benjamin D. Bergmann of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Sahinovic v. State, #83/18–1911 2 3/5/2020 4:15:56 PM MANSFIELD, Justice. Iowa Code section 822.3 generally allows a defendant “three years from the date the conviction or decision is final or, in the event of an appeal, from the date the writ of procedendo is issued” to bring an action for postconviction relief. The question we must answer is whether a defendant who wishes to challenge his or her underlying conviction gets the benefit of a new three-year, postconviction-relief deadline when that defendant is resentenced. We conclude the defendant does not. If the conviction itself remained final, then section 822.3’s time clock does not restart as to challenges to that conviction. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and the decision of the court of appeals. I. Facts and Procedural Background. On July 5, 2011, Adnan Sahinovic pled guilty to second-degree robbery, a class “C” felony, and forgery, an aggravated misdemeanor. He was sentenced that day to concurrent terms of ten and two years for these offenses. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.12, Sahinovic was required to serve seven-tenths of his ten-year sentence on the robbery conviction before being eligible for parole. Approximately two and a half years later, on January 29, 2014, Sahinovic moved for correction of an illegal sentence, alleging that his mandatory minimum sentence for robbery was illegal because he had been seventeen years old at the time he committed his crimes. See State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 404 (Iowa 2014). On October 6, Sahinovic retained new counsel, who moved to recast his motion to correct illegal sentence as a petition for postconviction relief. The proposed petition sought to assert the additional argument that Sahinovic’s guilty plea counsel had failed to Sahinovic v. State, #83/18–1911 3 3/5/2020 4:15:56 PM advise him of adverse immigration consequences. 1 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1486 (2010). Thus, the proposed petition would have challenged both Sahinovic’s guilty plea and his mandatory minimum sentence. The district court denied Sahinovic’s motion to recast on December 1. The court concluded, The defendant may pursue post-conviction relief at any time he otherwise has a right to and may raise any issues he otherwise has the right to raise in such a proceeding. However, he cannot “recast” his pro se motion [to correct an illegal sentence] “as a petition for post-conviction relief.” . . . Again, the defendant must, if ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals