Jerry Lee Williams, Sr. v. State of Iowa , 922 N.W.2d 105 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1195
Filed July 18, 2018
JERRY LEE WILLIAMS, SR.,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, John M. Wright,
Judge.
Jerry Williams appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
Eric D. Tindal of Keegan Farnsworth & Tindal, Iowa City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Aaron J. Rogers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Jerry Williams Sr. appeals the denial of his application for postconviction
relief (PCR) following his conviction for murder in the first degree. On direct
appeal, our supreme court set forth the following facts:
The charge arose from the slaying of Iowa State Penitentiary
inmate Gary Tyson on September 2, 1981. Defendant was among a
group of inmates being held in administrative segregation in
cellhouse 20 on that date. Defendant was then under indictment for
the alleged murder of inmate Allen Lewis on May 18, 1981. Tyson’s
death was discovered after a prison riot was brought under control.
The State’s evidence tended to show that defendant and
several fellow members of a prison gang called the Vice Lords killed
Tyson during the riot because they suspected Tyson was going to
provide the State with evidence against them on the Lewis homicide.
. . . In particular the jury could find that defendant held Tyson in a
chokehold while Allen Langley repeatedly stabbed him. Tyson was
beaten, choked and stabbed in the chest, back and neck. Forensic
testimony indicated that he died from the stab wounds.
State v. Williams, 360 N.W.2d 782, 784 (Iowa 1985). Procedendo issued February
12, 1985. Williams subsequently obtained signed affidavits from three separate
inmates stating two witnesses at Williams’s trial had confessed to falsely testifying
against Williams. Those affidavits are dated November 16, 1987, December 23,
1987, and March 1990. One of the affiants provided another affidavit dated August
4, 2016, that again states a witness had confessed to committing perjury in
Williams’s trial.
On December 30, 2013, Williams filed his application for PCR based partly
on the affidavits he obtained. On July 13, 2017, the district court denied his
application, finding he filed his application more than three years after the writ of
procedendo and he had failed to present a ground of fact or law that could not
3
have been raised during the three years to overcome the statute of limitations.
Iowa Code § 822.3 (2013).
On appeal, Williams has abandoned the arguments he raised before the
district court. Instead, he only argues his PCR counsel was ineffective for failing
to raise actual innocence and create a record to evaluate his innocence. To prevail
on a claim on ineffective assistance of counsel, the applicant must show “(1)
counsel failed to perform an essential duty; and (2) prejudice resulted.” State v.
Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 495 (Iowa 2012) (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S.
668, 687 (1984)). We typically preserve such claims for further PCR proceedings,
resolving the claims on appeal only if the record is adequate. Id. at 494.
Our supreme court recently addressed actual innocence in PCR actions,
finding the PCR statute of limitations does not bar freestanding actual innocence
claims and creating a new standard to evaluate actual innocence claims. Schmidt
v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 799–800 (Iowa 2018). The district court denied
Williams’s application before the issuance of the Schmidt decision. As a result,
Williams did not have the benefit of Schmidt when making arguments and
establishing the record regarding actual innocence before the district court, and
the record before us is inadequate to evaluate whether his counsel was ineffective
for failing to raise actual innocence. See Clay, 824 N.W.2d at 494. Therefore, we
affirm the district court, and we preserve his claim that his PCR counsel was
ineffective for failing to raise actual innocence for an additional PCR proceeding.
AFFIRMED.