IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1880
Filed August 30, 2023
ELVIN MARQUETTE FARRIS,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
Andreasen, Judge.
A postconviction applicant appeals the summary disposition of his
challenge to a traffic violation. AFFIRMED.
Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
The Sioux City police ticketed Elvin Farris for driving while his license was
suspended. When he did not appear for trial on this simple misdemeanor charge,
the district court relied upon his signature bond on the ticket to enter a conviction.
Farris applied for postconviction relief (PCR), noting his attorney withdrew the
morning of trial and did not advise that Farris was “expected in court that day.” The
State moved for summary judgment.1 The court granted the State’s motion, finding
no genuine issue of material fact that would entitle Farris to relief.
Farris appeals that summary disposition, claiming trial counsel provided
ineffective assistance by not advising him of the consequences for failing to appear
for trial. He also asserts that counsel’s “abandonment of [him] prejudiced his ability
to present his case to the judge.”
We generally review the summary dismissal of a PCR application for the
correction of legal error. Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018). But
when the basis for relief is ineffective assistance of counsel, we review the ruling
de novo. Id.
In finding the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the district
court declared that Farris “was required to appear with or without counsel.” The
court pointed out that no continuance had been granted. And Farris did not allege
that his attorney informed him that the trial would be continued or that he did not
need to appear. On this record, the court decided: “[N]o reasonable fact finder
1 Summary judgment principles apply to motions for disposition of a PCR
application without a trial on the merits. Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 560
(Iowa 2002); compare Iowa Code § 822.6(3) (2021).
3
could conclude that [Farris] was denied effective assistance of counsel because
no reasonable fact finder could conclude that [he] suffered any prejudice as a result
of the actions or inactions of [his trial attorney].”
Because the district court’s opinion identifies and considers all of the issues
that Farris presented, and we approve of the analysis in its summary judgment
ruling, we affirm by memorandum opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(d). In our
view, a full opinion would not enhance existing law. Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e).
AFFIRMED.