Carstens v. Rans
Decision Date | 19 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 55968,55968 |
Citation | 210 N.W.2d 663 |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Parties | Mary Lou CARSTENS, Appellant, v. Laurel RANS, Superintendent of the Women's Reformatory, and the State of Iowa, Appellees. |
John P. Roehrick, Des Moines, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Fred Haskins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clayton L. Wornson, Cerro Gordo Cty. Atty., for appellees.
Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES and UHLENHOPP, JJ.
Petitioner, Mary Lou Carstens, was convicted of murder and sentenced to the Women's Reformatory for the term of her natural life, pursuant to section 690.3, The Code. On appeal, we affirmed that judgment. See State v. Carstens, 182 N.W.2d 119 (Iowa 1970). She now seeks relief by way of postconviction proceedings under chapter 663A, The Code. Since we find that petitioner has not stated grounds which entitle her to consideration under our postconviction relief act, we dismiss the appeal.
The only issue raised by petitioner is alleged error because the trial court failed to order a competency hearing before going forward with her trial on the murder charge despite circumstances which she asserts made the course mandatory under the provisions of section 783.1, The Code.
Our postconviction statute became effective in 1970. Since that time, we have considered it on numerous occasions, most recently in Horn v. Haugh, 209 N.W.2d 119, Iowa, filed July 3, 1973, which we believe controls the case now before us.
After setting out the grounds upon which postconviction relief may be granted, section 663A.2 then contains this statement:
This section must be considered together with section 663A.8, which is here set out:
(Emphasis added.)
In Horn v. Haugh, supra, we said our postconviction relief act is ordinarily not available to correct errors which should have been (but were not) raised at some previous stage of the proceedings. Otherwise, a defendant could have numerous appeals, which is not the intent or purpose of the postconviction act. See State v. Wetzel, 192 N.W.2d 762, 764 (Iowa 1971).
In the case now before us, defendant was on trial for murder. She alleged insanity at the time of the offense as an affirmative defense. At that time an inquiry was put to her and her counsel as to whether she was claiming incompetency to stand trial. To this, her attorney answered he was not 'making any statements at all about that question.' This does not preclude the defendant from raising that issue later since chapter 783, The Code, imposes on the trial court an independent obligation to order competency proceedings if there exist circumstances which raise a reasonable doubt on the matter. See Hickey v. Kossuth County, 174 N.W.2d 406, 409 (Iowa 1970) and State v. Thomas, 205 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1973).
However, that does not touch the problem facing us here. After conviction, defendant appealed and failed to raise this issue as a ground for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Hopkinson v. District Court, Teton County
...litigated on appeal, nor a guise for a second motion for new trial on grounds previously denied and affirmed on appeal. Carstens v. Rans, Iowa, 210 N.W.2d 663 (1973); Roe v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 240 Md. 717, 214 A.2d 162 (1965). The petition is an extraordinary authorization to s......
- Welch v. Iowa Dep't of Transp.
-
Hinkle v. State
...of a convicted defendant should be submitted in a unitary action rather than piecemeal in successive actions. Carstens v. Rans, 210 N.W.2d 663, 664-65 (Iowa 1973). Inadequacy of appellate counsel, if established, would provide "sufficient reason" to permit Hinkle to raise this issue now alt......
-
Stanford v. Iowa State Reformatory
...to the dismissal is filed. Petitioner is not attempting to submit grounds in a piecemeal fashion as is decried in Carstens v. Rans, 210 N.W.2d 663, 664-665 (Iowa 1973), but is simply seeking to complete review of his conviction for the first time. Finding no bar to petitioner's claim, we no......