LUIS GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-235 / 08-1313
Filed May 6, 2009
LUIS GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Patrick J.
Madden, Judge.
Applicant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his application for
postconviction relief upon the State’s motion for summary disposition.
AFFIRMED.
Douglas Johnston, Muscatine, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney
General, Gary Allison, Muscatine County Attorney, and Alan Ostergren, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Potterfield and Mansfield, JJ.
2
MANSFIELD, J.
Luis Gomez-Rodriguez appeals from a district court order summarily
dismissing his application for postconviction relief. We affirm.
I. Procedural History
Gomez-Rodriguez was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and
one count of interference with official acts for shooting and killing Maria Rivero
and Julio Sarol in Muscatine on February 23, 2005. On direct appeal, GomezRodriguez argued ineffective assistance of counsel due to his trial counsel’s
failure to argue the defense of imperfect self-defense.
State v. Gomez-
Rodriguez, No. 06-0527 (Iowa Ct. App. June 13, 2007). We affirmed GomezRodriguez’s convictions holding:
Gomez-Rodriguez has failed to establish either a breach of duty or
prejudice. His trial counsel’s conduct fell well within the range of
competent professional assistance. Upon careful review of the
record, we find no reason to believe the outcome of the case would
have been different if his trial counsel had argued the defense of
imperfect self-defense.
Id.
Following our opinion, Gomez-Rodriguez sought further review from the
supreme court, but his application was denied.
Gomez-Rodriguez then filed an application for postconviction relief. On
June 27, 2008, Gomez-Rodriguez amended his application to reassert that he
was denied effective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to argue
the defense of an imperfect self-defense.
The State moved for summary
disposition under Iowa Code section 822.6 (2007), arguing the issue of whether
trial counsel was ineffective had been considered and adjudicated against
3
Gomez-Rodriguez; therefore, the principle of res judicata barred additional
litigation.
After a hearing on August 7, 2008, the district court granted the State’s
motion and dismissed Gomez-Rodriguez’s application, finding his claim was
“identical to that which was rejected by the Court of Appeals.” Gomez-Rodriguez
appeals.
II. Discussion
Iowa Code section 822.8 provides in pertinent part:
Any ground finally adjudicated . . . that resulted in the conviction or
sentence, . . . may not be the basis for a subsequent application,
unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for
sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in
the original, supplemental, or amended application.
This provision of the statute is clear and unambiguous; “[r]elitigation of
previously adjudicated issues is barred.” State v. Wetzel, 192 N.W.2d 762, 764
(Iowa 1971).
“A post-conviction proceeding is not intended as a vehicle for
relitigation, on the same factual basis, of issues previously adjudicated, and the
principle of res judicata bars additional litigation on this point.”
Id. (quoting
People v. West, 252 N.E.2d 529, 530 (Ill. 1969)).
It is clear Gomez-Rodriguez’s application for postconviction relief raises
the same issue that was decided adversely to him on direct appeal. As a result,
his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present a defense
based on the doctrine of imperfect self-defense is barred.
Gomez-Rodriguez also contends in his brief that he should have been
permitted to expand the record this time around, in order to support his
ineffective assistance claim. He is arguing that the trial record is inadequate to
4
resolve his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. But again, this contradicts
our finding on direct appeal. See State v. Gomez-Rodriguez, No. 06-0527 (Iowa
Ct. App. June 13, 2007). In effect, Gomez-Rodriguez is arguing that this court
erred when it resolved his ineffective assistance claim earlier based upon the trial
record.
Under the Iowa Rules of Appellate Procedure, Gomez-Rodriguez’s
remedy was to seek further review from the supreme court. Iowa R. App. P.
6.1103. He did so, and the supreme court denied review. Gomez-Rodriguez’s
arguments, however styled, remain an effort to relitigate that which has already
been litigated.
For the above-stated reasons, we conclude the district court did not err in
granting the State’s motion for summary disposition and dismissing GomezRodriguez’s postconviction relief application. Therefore, 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.
