IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1682
Filed July 19, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TERENCE LONDON WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L.
Stigler, Judge.
Terence Walker challenges by writ of certiorari the denial of his motion to
correct an illegal sentence. WRIT ANNULLED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
A jury found Terrence Walker guilty of robbery in the second degree and
burglary in the second degree. In 2014, he was sentenced to indeterminate
prison terms of ten years on each offense, to be served concurrently, requiring
he serve a mandatory minimum of seventy percent before parole eligibility on the
robbery conviction. On August 12, 2016, Walker filed a motion to correct an
illegal sentence, claiming, under legislation effective July 1, 2016, his
conviction—and therefore his sentence—should be for robbery in the third
degree. The State resisted, and the district court denied the motion without
setting it for a hearing.
Walker appealed the denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence,
arguing counsel was ineffective in not ensuring Walker had the benefit of a
hearing on his motion and that denial of his motion without an evidentiary hearing
was a denial of due process.1 See State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784
(Iowa 2006) (“Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are not bound by
traditional error-preservation rules.”). Our supreme court treated his appeal as a
petition for writ of certiorari and granted the petition. See State v. Propps, ___
N.W.2d ___, ___, 2017 WL 2291380, at *3 (Iowa 2017) (“[I]f a case is initiated by
a notice of appeal, but another form of review is proper, we may choose to
proceed as though the proper form of review was requested by the defendant
rather than dismiss the action.”). Walker argues that at an evidentiary hearing he
1
“Normally, ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are considered in postconviction
relief proceedings.” State v. Vance, 790 N.W.2d 775, 785 (Iowa 2010). When, as here,
the record is sufficient to address an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, we resolve
the claim on direct appeal. Id.
3
would have had the opportunity to develop facts to support his motion. But his
brief on appeal does not identify any facts that would have or should have been
presented and cites no legal authority that the legislature’s adoption of robbery in
the third degree requires reduction of his robbery conviction or reduction of his
sentence. His argument that he was denied due process requires—at the very
least—he assert that provision of a greater process would have the potential to
benefit him in obtaining his requested relief.
Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a) and (e), we annul the writ.
WRIT ANNULLED.