JASON HIVELEY, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-948 / 05-1759
Filed January 18, 2007
JASON HIVELEY,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, John S. Mackey,
Judge.
Jason Hiveley appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
David A. Kuehner of Laird & Luhring, Waverly, for appellant.
Jason Hiveley, Fort Madison, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant Attorney
General, and Karen Kaufman Salic, County Attorney.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Miller and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
The State charged Jason Hiveley with first-degree murder and first-degree
robbery. A jury found him guilty as charged. The district court sentenced him to
life-imprisonment on the murder count and twenty-five years on the robbery
count. In a written sentencing order, the court announced that the sentences
would be served consecutively, “[f]or the reasons stated on the record.” Those
reasons included the “unspeakable” nature of the crime, the need to “pay the
consequences,” and the “nightmare to the community.” Our court affirmed the
judgment and sentences and preserved certain ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims for postconviction relief. State v. Hiveley, No. 02-1520 (Iowa Ct. App.
Nov. 26, 2003).
Hiveley filed a postconviction relief application. He did not take issue with
the sentencing court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences. Following a
hearing, the postconviction court rejected all Hiveley’s claims. In dicta, the court
stated that trial and appellate counsel breached an essential duty in failing to
raise the sentencing judge’s purported failure to state reasons for imposing
consecutive sentences.
On appeal, Hiveley focuses on this aspect of the postconviction court’s
ruling. He concedes he “did not specifically urge in his application that defense
counsel was ineffective for failing to raise this argument,” but contends we may
nevertheless address the issue because the postconviction court did.
We
assume without deciding that we may do so and we proceed to the merits.
On our review of the sentencing record, we are convinced the court gave
sufficient, albeit terse reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. See State v.
3
Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989). Accordingly, we conclude neither
trial nor appellate counsel was ineffective in failing to raise this issue.
We affirm the dismissal of Hiveley’s postconviction relief application.
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.
