George Prentiss III, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1167
Filed August 31, 2016
GEORGE PRENTISS III,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Stuart P. Werling,
Judge.
George Prentiss appeals the district court’s dismissal of his
postconviction-relief application. AFFIRMED.
Les M. Blair III of Blair & Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
In 2001, a jury found George Prentiss guilty of first-degree murder and
first-degree robbery. This court affirmed his judgment and sentence, and
procedendo issued in 2003. See State v. Prentiss, No. 02-0053, 2003 WL
21360908, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. June 13, 2003). In 2010, Prentiss filed the
second of two postconviction-relief applications. The district court dismissed the
application as time-barred. On appeal, Prentiss contends the dismissal was
error.
Postconviction-relief 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.” Iowa Code § 822.3 (2015). “However, this
limitation does not apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been
raised within the applicable time period.” Id.
Prentiss’ application was not filed within three years of procedendo and
failed to raise a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the
applicable time period. As the district court noted, most of the facts underlying
Prentiss’ claims were known to him at the time of trial. Accordingly, the claims
could have been raised within the applicable time period.
Apparently recognizing this hurdle, Prentiss attempts to raise the claims
under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric. Our appellate courts have
consistently rejected attempts to circumvent the time-bar in this fashion. See
Wilkins v. State, 522 N.W.2d 822, 824 (Iowa 1994) (noting the applicant
“label[ed] his claim ineffective-assistance-of-postconviction-counsel in the hope
that the court [would] reach the merits of his contention that his trial counsel was
3
ineffective” and concluding “his claims neither involve[d] new evidence nor [we]re
they new legal claims”); Jackson v. State, No. 12-1496, 2013 WL 4505114, at *2
(Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2013) (“Our courts have repeatedly held that ‘an
applicant for postconviction relief cannot circumvent the effect of the three-year
time bar by merely claiming the ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel.’”
(citation omitted)). In line with this authority, we find Prentiss’ efforts to
repackage his allegations unavailing.
We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Prentiss’ postconviction-relief
application.
AFFIRMED.