LARY LANE MORGAN, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-831 / 08-0730
Filed December 30, 2009
LARY LANE MORGAN,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, Mary Ann
Brown, Judge.
Lary Lane Morgan challenges the district court’s denial of his second
postconviction relief action. AFFIRMED.
William Monroe, Burlington, for appellant.
Lary Morgan, Anamosa, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary Tabor, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael Short, County Attorney, and Gordon Liles, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mansfield, JJ.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Lary Lane Morgan appeals the district court’s dismissal of his second
postconviction relief action, asserting multiple issues through his appellate
counsel and pro se. We affirm.
On January 30, 1995, Morgan was convicted and sentence was entered
on the jury’s findings that he was guilty of murder in the first degree, kidnapping
in the first degree, and sexual abuse in the first degree.
On direct appeal,
January 22, 2000, the supreme court affirmed his convictions but vacated the
sentence on the kidnapping conviction, finding it merged with the greater offense.
State v. Morgan, 559 N.W.2d 603, 612 (Iowa 1997). Morgan’s first application for
postconviction relief was, in part, summarily dismissed, and the remaining issues
were tried with the district court denying his application on March 26, 2003.
Morgan’s appeal of that ruling was dismissed by our supreme court on June 9,
2005, as frivolous.
On February 15, 2005, Morgan filed his second postconviction relief
action. After a hearing, the district court carefully addressed each issue raised,
and finding Morgan’s issues to be time barred, previously decided, or lacking in
merit, dismissed his application. It is from this ruling and the court’s denial of
Morgan’s motion to reconsider that this appeal is brought.
We review this appeal of Morgan’s denial of his second postconviction
relief application, de novo. Ledezma v. State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001).
We agree with the district court that Morgan’s entire application raises
issues that were previously litigated and decided against him, or issues that are
time barred or which lack in merit.
3
We find the district court recited the relevant facts and applied the
appropriate law in its detailed, twenty-five page opinion that fully disposed of
Morgan’s second application for postconviction relief.
pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.29(1)(a), (c), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.
We therefore affirm
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.
