Hoeck v. State Of Iowa, 0-699
| Decision Date | 10 November 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 0-699,No. 09-0830,0-699,09-0830 |
| Parties | ANTHONY ALLEN HOECK, Applicant-Appellant, v. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Bobbi M. Alpers, Judge.
A postconviction relief applicant claims the district court erred in dismissing his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Jack E. Dusthimer, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Jay Sommers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Danilson, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part.
In 1994, Anthony Hoeck was found guilty of first-degree kidnapping, second-degree murder, and several other crimes. This court affirmed his judgment and sentences in 1996. State v. Hoeck, 547 N.W.2d 852, 863 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996).
Hoeck filed an application for postconviction relief nine years later. The State moved to dismiss the application on the ground it was barred by a three-year statutory deadline. See Iowa Code § 822.3 (2005). The application languished for several years. During this time, Hoeck twice amended the application and moved for summary judgment, and the State renewed its motion to dismiss. The district court eventually denied Hoeck's motion for summary judgment and granted the State's motion to dismiss. Hoeck appealed.
The primary issue on appeal is whether Hoeck's postconviction relief application is time-barred. Section 822.3 states:
All other applications must be filed within 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. However, this limitation does not apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the applicable time period.
There is no question Hoeck's application was filed more than three years after procedendo issued in his direct appeal. The only question is whether Hoeck raised "a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the applicable time period." Hoeck asserts he did. He argues "[i]t was not until 2005 that [he] learned that [a]uthorities had evidence that would put his entire case into... question." This evidence, in his view, was a 2005 remark made by a womanwho was listed as a State witness at the time of trial. She apparently told Hoeck's sister that police attempted to coach her and to suppress her statement.
By acknowledging this woman was listed as a State witness at the time of trial, Hoeck has effectively conceded that the manner in which police elicited her statements could have been raised within the applicable time period. Accordingly, we conclude the witness's 2005 assertion is not a ground of fact that would except Hoeck's postonviction relief application from the three-year time bar. See Smith v. State, 542 N.W.2d 853, 854 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial