IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-0874
Filed June 25, 2014
JOSEPH M. AGAN,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Annette J.
Scieszinski, Judge.
Appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a postconviction relief action.
AFFIRMED.
Julie R. De Vries of De Vries Law Office, P.L.C., Centerville, for appellant.
Joseph Agan, Clarinda, pro se appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, and Richard Scott, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Joseph Agan appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his
postconviction relief action, claiming the court erred in denying his request for a
transcript, in denying his attorney’s motion to withdraw, and in granting the
State’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. He further contends his
postconviction counsel was ineffective in allowing the court to proceed in the
postconviction action without obtaining a ruling on the request for a transcript.
We affirm the judgment of the district court.
In 2012, Agan filed a pro se “petition alleging illegal sentence,” which the
court treated as an application for postconviction relief. Appointed counsel (who
had represented Agan in an earlier case) filed an application for a transcript at
State expense and then filed a motion to withdraw on the chance Agan wanted to
raise a claim counsel had been ineffective. The State moved to dismiss for
failure to state a claim.
The court summarized Agan’s claims:
In his revised and amended Petition Alleging Illegal
Sentence, and as explained in his revised and clarified trial
testimony, Agan raises questions about how the Executive Branch
of government has treated him. He chides the actions of the
prosecutor, asserting that he feels it is unfair that he was not
offered the same plea deals as his two co-defendants. He decries
the actions of the Appanoose County Sheriff in charging “pay for
stay” that resulted in the August 24, 2009 entry of a restitution
judgment for $13,755.79. He also questions the Department of
Corrections’ recordkeeping practices, and worries that an online
mention of the sentences he has accumulated might mislead the
Parole Board into believing that he needs to discharge a maximum
amount of time of 35 years (25 plus 10) rather than just the 25
incurred in 2009.
3
The court considered whether any ineffective assistance claims could be made
and found no basis for any. Because none of the claims Agan made “warrant[ed]
investigation through court transcripts,” the court determined there was no need
for a transcript. The court denied Agan’s petition, denied counsel’s motion to
withdraw as moot, and granted the State’s motion to dismiss.
We review sentences for correction of errors at law. See Iowa R. App. P.
6.907. An illegal sentence may be corrected at any time. See Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.24(5)(a). Postconviction relief proceedings are civil actions reviewable for
correction of errors at law. See Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539, 541 (Iowa
2009). To the extent an applicant raises constitutional questions, our review is
de novo. See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012).
In its well-reasoned ruling, the district court carefully considered and
correctly decided Agan’s claims. The court did not err in its decision to grant the
State’s motion to dismiss because Agan did not raise any claim that would make
him eligible for postconviction relief. See Iowa Code § 822.2 (2011). Because
the transcript was not necessary for the court to consider Agan’s claims, the
court did not err in denying his request for a transcript. Because there were no
ineffective assistance claims, the court did not err in denying counsel’s motion to
withdraw. Because the transcript was not necessary, Agan’s attorney was not
ineffective in not obtaining a ruling on the request for a transcript before the
hearing on Agan’s claims. We affirm the district court pursuant to Iowa Rule
21.26(1)(a) and (d).
AFFIRMED.
4