IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 12-2216
Filed June 11, 2014
LOUIS JOHNSON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D. Telleen,
Judge.
A postconviction relief applicant appeals from denial of his application.
AFFIRMED.
G. Brian Weiler, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, J.
Louis Johnson appeals from denial of his postconviction-relief (PCR)
application contending the trial court erred by denying his request for substitute
counsel. In November 2009, a jury convicted Johnson of possession with intent
to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and driving while barred. Prior to
trial, Johnson raised a pro se motion requesting a new attorney. The court heard
the motion and denied it. Following trial, Johnson appealed the conviction but
did not raise the court’s denial of his request for new counsel. We affirmed. See
State v. Johnson, No. 09-1895, 2010 WL 5050582, at * 2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 8,
2010). Johnson filed an application for postconviction relief. At the
postconviction trial, Johnson’s counsel orally amended the application to raise
the claim that denial of his trial motion for new counsel violated Johnson’s Sixth
Amendment rights. The PCR court denied the application, and Johnson
appealed.
Generally, we review denial of an application for postconviction relief for
correction of errors at law. Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa
2012). However, when the applicant asserts claims of a constitutional nature,
our review is de novo. Id. Thus, we review Johnson’s Sixth Amendment claim
de novo.
Iowa Code section 822.8 (2011) provides, with respect to applications for
postconviction relief:
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
3
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.
An exception to these error preservations rules exists where the failure to raise
the claim was a result of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Fountain, 786
N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2010). Johnson raises no such argument here, nor does
he assert any other reason why he did not raise the claim in his direct appeal.
We find, therefore, that Johnson waived the claim and we do not address it.
AFFIRMED.