For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
Daniel Ray Penticoff
v.
State of Iowa
Appellant
Daniel Ray Penticoff
Appellee
State of Iowa
Attorney for the Appellant
R.E. Breckenridge
Attorney for the Appellee
Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Considered by Tabor, P.J., and May and Greer, JJ. Opinion by Greer, J. Dissent by May, J. (12 pages)
Daniel Penticoff appeals the district court’s summary dismissal of his postconviction-relief application as time-barred. Penticoff argues his freestanding actual-innocence claim, based on Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2018), falls under the “ground of fact or law” exception to the three-year limitations period of Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018). OPINION HOLDS: We conclude Penticoff’s actual-innocence claim is a ground of law that Penticoff could not have raised within the limitations period. We do not reach the merits of his actual-innocence claim but remand for further proceedings. DISSENT ASSERTS: Penticoff’s claims are barred by Iowa Code section 822.3 (2018) because (1) Penticoff failed to demonstrate his claims are based a ground of fact or law that could not have been raised within the three years after he was sentenced; and (2) Penticoff failed to file his application within those three years. The district court was right to dismiss Penticoff’s application. I respectfully dissent.
