JAMES DEAN RAYMOND, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-709 / 12-1174 Filed August 21, 2013 JAMES DEAN RAYMOND, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Bryan H. McKinley, Judge. James Dean Raymond appeals the district court s denial of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED. Stuart G. Hoover of Blair & Fitzsimmons P.C., Dubuque, for appellant. James Raymond, Fort Madison, appellant pro se. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, Norman Klemesrud, County Attorney, and Denise A. Timmins and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2 MULLINS, J. In 2006, a jury found James Dean Raymond guilty of first-degree murder. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2008, Raymond filed an application for postconviction relief arguing (1) the prosecution violated his due process rights by withholding material, exculpatory evidence from the defense; (2) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to properly impeach the credibility of a key prosecution witness; (3) his decision not to testify was coerced and involuntary; and (4) newly discovered evidence requires that he be granted a new trial. After receiving briefing and hearing argument, the district court rejected each of Raymond s arguments and denied his application on May 29, 2012. Upon our review of the record, we find the district court identified and thoroughly considered each of the grounds raised now on appeal. We agree with the well-reasoned findings of the district court and conclude that a full opinion by this court would not augment or clarify existing case law. We therefore affirm without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e). 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.
