Keith Leonard James v. State of Iowa ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1858
Filed October 2, 2024
KEITH LEONARD JAMES,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea Dryer,
Judge.
A postconviction-relief applicant appeals the denial of his motion for
continuance and the subsequent dismissal of his application. AFFIRMED.
Katherine R.J. Scott of New Point Law Firm, PLC, Ames, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ.
2
SANDY, Judge.
Keith Leonard James appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to
continue his post-conviction relief (PCR) trial and its subsequent dismissal of the
proceedings. He argues the district court abused its discretion in denying his
motion to continue when he failed to appear for trial and finding his trial counsel
was not ineffective by failing to assert a justification defense on the charges James
ultimately pleaded guilty to. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Procedure
In November 2021, the State filed a trial information charging James with
interference with official acts causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code section
719.1(1)(c) (2021), a serious misdemeanor. In April 2022, James pleaded guilty
and admitted that he “did knowingly resist or obstruct a peace officer, CJ Nichols
(WPD) in performance of his lawful duty resulting in bodily injury to his knees
causing bleeding.” James recognized that he would pay a $430 fine, a fifteen
percent surcharge, and restitution, and be given twenty-three days credit for time
served in jail. The district court accepted his plea and sentenced him as specified
in the plea agreement.
In June 2022, James filed a PCR application. He alleged that the charges
originated because of a fire that started at his house. He stated that an officer
pulled him out of his house after the fire had been extinguished and the fire chief
had “return[ed] custody of the home.” He contended that his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to assert a theory of self-defense.
In July 2023, an order was issued explaining that the case was subject to
dismissal under Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944 and requiring a motion for relief
3
from dismissal to be filed before October 15. On October 13, counsel moved to
exempt the case from an Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 1.944 dismissal.
James failed to appear at his September 20, 2023 trial. His counsel moved
to continue and stated that he had sent a letter about the trial to the residence
James used on his financial affidavit. The State resisted the motion. Finding no
good cause, the district court denied the motion. The district court then dismissed
James’s PCR application upon finding he had failed to show trial counsel was
ineffective. James now appeals.
II. Justification—Preservation of Error
“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily
be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on
appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). Claims on appeal
must be specific. Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Iowa 2018). “We will not
speculate on the arguments the claimant might have made and then search for
legal authority and comb the record for facts to support such arguments.” Id.(citation omitted) (cleaned up).
James argues the district court erred in not finding his trial counsel was
ineffective for failing to pursue a justification defense. But he raised no such claim
in his PCR application. He simply argued that law enforcement’s actions were
“unlawful” and his counsel was ineffective because James “was not told that the []
facts would have produced an acquittal of this case.” James urges we give him
“leeway” and grant “liberal construction” to his application as a pro se applicant.
But James has been represented by counsel since the month he submitted his
PCR application, and he did not seek to amend his PCR application to narrow his
4
arguments after PCR counsel was appointed. James argues on appeal that if the
district court had allowed him to proceed to the merits of his claim, he could have
proved he received ineffective assistance of counsel in his criminal case. This is
not a tenable argument. Claims that would arise for the first time on PCR appeal
must be raised in a separate PCR application rather than first addressed on
appeal. See id. at 526.
The district court did not err in failing to rule on a claim that was not brought
before it. See id. (“[W]e do not remand cases to the district court for evidence on
issues not raised and decided by the district court.”). Because James failed to
show up for trial he failed to advance a justification argument and we cannot
consider it in this appeal.
III. Motion to Continue
A. Standard of Review
We review “denial of a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion.”
State v. Clark, 814 N.W.2d 551, 560 (Iowa 2012).
B. Discussion
James contends the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion
for a continuance because “there was nothing in the record here to suggest James
knew about the hearing date.”
Continuances of trial “may be allowed for any cause not growing out of the
fault or negligence of the movant, which satisfies the court that substantial justice
will be more nearly obtained.” Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.911(1). “The decision to grant or
deny a motion for continuance of a criminal trial lies within the broad discretion of
5
the trial court, and will not be reversed on appeal unless an injustice has resulted.”
State v. Melk, 543 N.W.2d 297 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
We see no injustice that occurred here. Contrary to James’s claim, the
record does suggest James knew about the trial date. At the PCR trial his counsel
stated he had sent an introductory letter and notice of the hearing to the address
on James’s financial affidavit. And both a Black Hawk County search and Iowa
Department of Corrections website search showed that James was not
incarcerated or in jail. No evidence suggesting James lives elsewhere is available
in the record. James simply suggests “it was possible James was no longer living
there.”
James cites Young v. State, No. 11-0791, 2013 WL 3822101, at *1 (Iowa
Ct. App. July 24, 2013) and McCall v. State, No. 15-1541, 2016 WL 7403721, at
*2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016), to support his claim. But that is unpersuasive.
Those cases stand for the opposite conclusion. In both Young and McCall, there
were other grounds that supported denial of continuance. Young, like this case,
had been on the calendar for “nearly a year” and the court and counsel were
present and ready to proceed with trial. 2013 WL 3822101, at *1. Young’s
awareness of the proceedings was only one factor our court considered in that
appeal.
McCall had also been on the district court docket for an extended period of
time, and there, counsel had also made unsuccessful attempts to alert their client
of the hearing date. 2016 WL 7403721, at *1. In McCall, unlike here, counsel
even moved for continuance several days in advance and we still affirmed. See
id. at *2.
6
We cannot say an abuse of discretion resulting in an injustice occurred here.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s denial of James’s motion for continuance.
AFFIRMED.