LEWIS EUGENE ANDERSON, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-1034 / 08-0904
Filed February 10, 2010
LEWIS EUGENE ANDERSON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Dan F.
Morrison, Judge.
Lewis Eugene Anderson appeals from the summary dismissal of his
application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Rockne O. Cole of Cole & Vondra, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, and Barbara A. Edmondson, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Eisenhauer, P.J., Potterfield, J., and Huitink, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
EISENHAUER, P.J.
Lewis Eugene Anderson appeals from the summary dismissal of his
application for postconviction relief. He contends his constitutional right to due
process was violated by the supreme court’s ruling on retroactivity in State v.
Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549, 558 (Iowa 2006). Our review is for correction of
errors at law. DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Iowa 2002).
In 1988, Anderson was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction
was affirmed on appeal and his first application for postconviction relief was
denied. In 2008, Anderson filed this second postconviction action, seeking a new
trial based on a retroactive application of the Heemstra decision. Heemstra held
willful injury cannot serve as the predicate felony for felony-murder purposes if it
is the same act that causes the victim’s death. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d at 550.
However, the Heemstra court went on to say:
The rule of law announced in this case regarding the use of willful
injury as a predicate felony for felony-murder purposes shall be
applicable only to the present case and those cases not finally
resolved on direct appeal in which the issue has been raised in the
district court.
Id.
On appeal, Anderson “readily admits that the Heemstra’s retroactivity
statement requires this court to affirm the district court.” However, he argues the
statement violates his state and federal due process rights.
In the recently
decided case of Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539, 545 (Iowa 2009), our
supreme court held “the limitation of retroactivity announced in Heemstra to
cases on direct appeal where the issue has been preserved [does] not violate
3
federal due process rights . . . .” We find no reason to apply a different analysis
in considering Anderson’s state constitutional due process claim. See State v.
James, 393 N.W.2d 465, 466 (Iowa 1986) (stating “we interpret provisions in our
constitution which are similar to those in the federal constitution as being
identical in scope, import and purpose” after noting the due process guarantees
of the state constitution are identical to that of the federal constitution).
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
