IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 19-0269 Filed April 29, 2020 VINCENT NDIKUMANA, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner, Judge. An applicant appeals the district court decision dismissing his applications for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Fred Stiefel, Victor, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State. Considered by Mullins, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Danilson, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2020). 2 DANILSON, Senior Judge. Vincent Ndikumana appeals the district court decision dismissing his applications for postconviction relief (PCR). We find further development of the record was not necessary before the court determined the applications should be dismissed. We conclude the district court did not err by dismissing Ndikumana’s PCR application because they were not filed within the three-year time period prescribed by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018). We affirm the decision of the district court. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Ndikumana pled guilty to gathering where controlled substances are unlawfully used. The judgment and sentence for this conviction was filed on September 6, 2013. He also pled guilty to burglary in the third degree and theft in the third degree. The judgment and sentencing order was filed on February 5, 2014. Ndikumana did not appeal his convictions. On October 1, 2018, Ndikumana filed PCR applications in these cases, claiming he received ineffective assistance because his defense counsel did not adequately explain the immigration consequences of his pleas. The State filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss on the ground Ndikumana’s applications were barred by the three-year time limit found in section 822.3. In his resistance to the motion to dismiss, Ndikumana claimed the case Diaz v. State, 896 N.W.2d 723, 732 (Iowa 2017), created a new ground of law concerning counsel’s duty to advise a client concerning the immigration consequences of a guilty plea. Ndikumana asserted his PCR applications were timely because they were filed within three years after Diaz was decided. 3 The district court found, “The Diaz court created no new rule, imposed new obligations, and broke no new ground.” The court determined the Iowa Supreme Court was following United States Supreme Court precedent found in Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 374 (2010). The court concluded Ndikumana failed to show his applications were timely because they were based upon a new ground of law or fact. The court dismissed the PCR applications as untimely. Ndikumana filed a posttrial motion pursuant to Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.904(2). The district court denied the motion. Ndikumana now appeals. II. Standard of Review We review a district court’s decision dismissing a PCR application on the ground it is untimely for the correction of errors at law. Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509, 519 (Iowa 2003). “Thus, we will affirm if the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and the law was correctly applied.” Id. III. Discussion A. Ndikumana ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals