STEVEN RAY WYCOFF, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-366 / 07-0205
Filed June 17, 2009
STEVEN RAY WYCOFF,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee County, David B. Hendrickson
and Richard J. Vogel, Judges.
Applicant-appellant, Steven Wycoff, appeals from the summary disposition
of his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Steven Ray Wycoff, Fort Madison, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas W. Andrews, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael Short, County Attorney, and Robert Glaser, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Doyle, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Applicant-appellant, Steven Wycoff, appeals from the summary disposition
of his application for postconviction relief. He contends the court erred in not
allowing him to amend his application and in granting the State’s motion for
summary disposition. In his pro se supplemental brief he also claims the court
erred in denying him full discovery, in denying his motion for summary judgment,
in granting the State’s motion, and in failing to grant relief based on a due
process violation and newly-discovered evidence. We affirm.
Wycoff was convicted of first-degree murder in 1976. The supreme court
upheld the judgment and sentence on direct appeal.
State v. Wycoff, 255
N.W.2d 116, 119 (Iowa 1977). The denial of postconviction relief in his first
application was affirmed on appeal. See Wycoff v. State, 382 N.W.2d 462, 473
(Iowa 1986). The denial of postconviction relief in his second application was
affirmed on appeal. Wycoff v. State, No. 92-0786 (Iowa Aug. 2, 1993). The
denial of postconviction relief in his third application was affirmed on appeal.
Wycoff v. State, No. 99-0383 (Iowa Ct. App. May 31, 2000).
In 2003 Wycoff filed his fourth application for postconviction relief. After
numerous subsequent pleadings and three unsuccessful interlocutory appeals by
Wycoff, the district court granted the State’s motion for summary disposition,
determining the “newly discovered” evidence consisted of forged documents and
evidence or witnesses that were available or should have been discovered at the
time of trial. “These claims do not constitute newly-discovered evidence nor do
they establish a claim of incompetent counsel.” Wycoff appeals.
3
Our review of postconviction relief proceedings is for correction of errors at
law. Taylor v. State, 752 N.W.2d 24, 27 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). An applicant must
file the application for postconviction relief within three years of the conviction or
disposition on appeal. Iowa Code § 822.3 (2005). “However, this limitation does
not apply to a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the
applicable time period.” Id. The application must include “[a]ll grounds for relief
available to an applicant” under chapter 822. Id. § 822.8.
Any ground finally adjudicated or not raised, or knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted
in the conviction or sentence, or in any other proceeding the
applicant has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a
subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief
which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately
raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application.
Id. The district court may grant summary disposition in a postconviction action
“when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions and agreements of fact, together with any affidavits” that “there is no
genuine issue of fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.” Iowa Code § 822.6 (2005).
From our review of the extensive record, we agree with the conclusions of
the district court that all of Wycoff’s claims are barred, either because they are
not based on newly-discovered evidence or because they have been or could
have been raised in a prior proceeding. See id. §§ 822.3, 822.8. Finding no
error, we affirm. See Iowa Ct. Rule 21.29(1)(c), (d), (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.
