MATTHEW MCGUIRE, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-431 / 11-1722 Filed July 10, 2013 MATTHEW MCGUIRE, Applicant-Appellant, vs. STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, John D. Ackerman, Judge. Matthew McGuire appeals from dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief on grounds it was untimely. AFFIRMED. Zachary S. Hindman of Bikakis, Mayne, Arneson, Hindman & Hisey, Sioux City, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Jill Esteves, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Danilson and Mullins, JJ. 2 DANILSON, J. Matthew McGuire appeals from dismissal of his second application for postconviction relief. The district court determined McGuire s application was untimely filed. McGuire argues that appellate counsel in his first postconviction relief proceeding was ineffective in failing to file an application for further review. He acknowledges that the present interpretation of Iowa Code section 822.3 (2011) bars his current application. His contention on appeal is that we should overrule Dible v. State, 557 N.W.2d 881, 884 (Iowa 1996) (holding ineffectiveness of first postconviction counsel is not ground of fact within exception to three-year statute of limitations for postconviction actions under Iowa Code section 822.3 as there is no nexus between this alleged ground of fact and the conviction he seeks to set aside ), abrogated on other grounds by Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003), and Harrington, 659 N.W.2d at 520-21 ( [A]n applicant relying on section 822.3 must show the alleged ground of fact could not have been raised earlier, the applicant must also show a nexus between the asserted ground of fact and the challenged conviction. ). It is not for this court to overrule Iowa Supreme Court precedent. See State v. Eichler, 83 N.W.2d 576, 578 (Iowa 1957) ( If our previous holdings are to be overruled, we should ordinarily prefer to do it ourselves. ); State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa Ct. App.1990) ( We are not at liberty to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent. ). We therefore affirm.1 AFFIRMED. 1 If McGuire is claiming an illegal sentence, that claim must first be made in the district court.
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.
