CHARLES JAMES, JR., Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-213 / 08-0021
Filed May 29, 2009
CHARLES JAMES, JR.,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert A. Hutchison,
Judge.
Postconviction relief applicant appeals the summary dismissal of his
petition. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Lynn C.H. Poschner of Borseth Law Office, Altoona, for appellant.
Charles James, Jr., Fort Madison, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant Attorney
General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Dan Voogt, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Charles James, Jr. appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his
second application for postconviction relief. We adopt the trial court’s statement
of facts.
James first argues his original conviction should be overturned on the
basis of State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (Iowa 2006).
constitutional claims based on Heemstra de novo.
We review the
Harrington v. State, 659
N.W.2d 509, 519 (Iowa 2003). We conclude the district court correctly granted
summary dismissal of all Heemstra-based claims. See Goosman v. State, ___
N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2009).
James next argues the court erred in dismissing his postconviction claim
based on newly discovered evidence, the Jones affidavit.
We review for
correction of errors at law. Harrington, 659 N.W.2d at 519. We agree with the
district court’s Summage analysis: (1) the affidavit is cumulative, and (2) the
affidavit would not change the outcome of the case. See Summage v. State, 579
N.W.2d 821 (Iowa 1998). Dismissal on the basis of newly discovered evidence is
appropriate.
Finally, James argues the court erred by using the wrong legal test in its
statute of limitations analysis. The State concedes the trial court failed to use the
nexus test explained in Harrington, 659 N.W.2d at 520-21. We remand solely for
reconsideration of the statute of limitations issue. We do not retain jurisdiction.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
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.
