Samuel Montez Wright v. State of Iowa ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0853
Filed June 7, 2023
SAMUEL MONTEZ WRIGHT,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
Andreasen, Judge.
Samuel Wright appeals the summary denial of his second postconviction
relief application. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Jack Bjornstad of Jack Bjornstad Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Badding, P.J., Buller, J., and Scott, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
SCOTT, Senior Judge.
In 2008, Samuel Wright was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree
robbery, and first-degree kidnapping. Wright appealed and, on January 22, 2010,
this court affirmed his convictions. State v. Wright, No. 08-1737, 2010 WL 200052,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2010). Procedendo issued on March 24, 2010.
On August 16, 2010, Wright filed his first application for postconviction relief
(PCR) asserting newly discovered evidence and raising several issues regarding
the effectiveness of previous counsel. After a trial on the merits, the application
was denied, and this court affirmed on appeal. Wright v. State, No. 15-1530, 2017
WL 936077, at *12 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017). Procedendo issued on April 17,
2017.
On June 29, 2018, our supreme court held:
In order to avoid the difficult constitutional position that would
result in denying a remedy where defense counsel allegedly
provided ineffective assistance at trial and postconviction counsel is
ineffective in raising that claim, we think the best approach is to hold
that where a PCR petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial
counsel has been timely filed per section 822.3 and there is a
successive PCR petition alleging postconviction counsel was
ineffective in presenting the ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel
claim, the timing of the filing of the second PCR petition relates back
to the timing of the filing of the original PCR petition for purposes of
Iowa Code section 822.3 if the successive PCR petition is filed
promptly after the conclusion of the first PCR action.
Allison v. State, 914 N.W.2d 866, 891 (Iowa 2018), superseded by statute as
stated in Sandoval v. State, 975 N.W.2d 434, 436 (Iowa 2022).
On November 16, 2018, Wright filed his second PCR application. The State
moved for summary judgment on September 9, 2019, asserting the application
was time-barred. Wright, by appointed counsel, resisted the motion. The
3
postconviction court noted, “The sole question to be determined at this time is
whether the current PCR action was filed ‘promptly’ after the conclusion of Wright’s
first PCR action.” On April 29, 2022, the PCR court found the second application
was not promptly filed and dismissed the application.
On May 18, 2022, the Iowa Supreme Court docketed Wright’s mailed pro
se informational notice of appeal and appointment of counsel. To date, neither
Wright nor his court-appointed attorney has filed a notice of appeal with the district
court, and the district court has never certified such a notice to the supreme court.
See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.102(2) (requiring a notice of appeal be timely filed with the
clerk of the district court); 6.102(2)(b) (requiring an “informational copy” of the
notice of appeal be filed with the supreme court); 6.802(1) (directing the district
court to transmit certified copies of the notice of appeal). The supreme court
ordered Wright’s PCR counsel to address the issue of the court’s jurisdiction.1
Counsel asserted the court should consider granting Wright a delayed appeal
based on his pro se notice of appeal expressing his good faith intent to appeal and
the court’s acceptance of the filing. The jurisdictional issue was ordered submitted
with the appeal.
Wright’s pro se notice of appeal filed in May 2022 “while he was represented
by counsel was a nullity under Iowa Code section 822.3A (2021), which prohibits
the filing of pro se documents by represented parties and the court’s consideration
thereof.” Jones v. State, 981 N.W.2d 141, 143 (Iowa 2022). The later amendment
1 Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.109(4) provides, “The attorneys . . . of record
in the district court shall be deemed the attorneys . . . in the appellate court unless
others are retained or appointed and notice is given to the parties and the clerk of
the supreme court.”
4
allowing pro se notices of appeal was not effective until July 1, 2022. See 2022
Iowa Acts ch. 1110, § 2 (codified at Iowa Code § 822.3A(3)(b) (2023)). Because
a delayed appeal is not available in postconviction proceedings, we dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction.2 Jones, 981 N.W.2d at 143.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2This court is without authority to overturn supreme court precedent. See State v.
Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (“We are not at liberty to
overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.”).