IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1080
Filed March 11, 2015
JEREMIAH CLARENCE JOHNSON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Christopher C. Foy,
Judge.
Jeremiah Johnson appeals the denial of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, and Gregory M. Lievens, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
Jeremiah Johnson appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR) claiming his trial counsel was ineffective, his PCR
counsel was ineffective, and the district court improperly denied his motion for a
change of venue. We affirm on appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to
Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (d).
On March 19, 2009, Johnson was charged with kidnapping in the first
degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 710.1(3) and 710.2 (2009). After a
jury trial ended with a guilty verdict on November 2, 2009, Johnson was
sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Johnson filed a
motion for new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment claiming, in part, the court
erred in failing to grant a mistrial. Johnson appealed his conviction claiming the
district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. We found the district court
did not abuse its discretion and affirmed its ruling. 1
On March 21, 2011, Johnson filed an application for PCR. He claimed
counsel was ineffective as Johnson did not understand the proceedings and he
claimed he was not allowed to testify. Johnson later amended the application to
challenge the jury selection process. On June 24, 2013, the district court denied
Johnson’s application. Johnson now appeals from this denial.
We review postconviction-relief proceedings for errors at law. Ledezma v.
State, 626 N.W.2d 134, 141 (Iowa 2001). To the extent Johnson’s claim involves
1
State v. Johnson, No. 09-1776, 2010 WL 5050573 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2010).
3
the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel, our review is de novo.
Ennenga v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012).
The postconviction court’s detailed and thorough ruling addressed the
issues presented and correctly found that counsel was not ineffective. Johnson
was unable to show trial counsel, appellate counsel, or PCR counsel breached
any professional duty. Further, since Johnson failed to raise the change-of-
venue claim in his direct appeal, error has not been preserved on that claim. See
Iowa Code § 822.8 (2013) (“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 asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or
was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application.”).
Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (d) we affirm the postconviction
court’s denial of Johnson’s application.
AFFIRMED.