1. Within thirty days after the docketing of the application, or within any further time the court may fix, the state shall respond by answer or by motion which may be supported by affidavits. At any time prior to entry of judgment the court may grant leave to withdraw the application. The court may make appropriate orders for amendment of the application or any pleading or motion, for pleading over, for filing further pleadings or motions, or for extending the time of the filing of any pleading. In considering the application the court shall take account of substance regardless of defects of form.
2. When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to postconviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, the court may indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and the reasons for dismissal. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal. In light of the reply, or on default thereof, the court may order the application dismissed or grant leave to file an amended application or direct that the proceedings otherwise continue. Disposition on the pleadings and record is not proper if a material issue of fact exists.
3. The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of the application, when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of fact, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [C71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §663A.6] C93, §822.6 2018 Acts, ch 1041, §127; 2019 Acts, ch 24, §95; 2019 Acts, ch 45, §1; 2019 Acts, ch 140, §36 \n
Notes of Decisions
Jacob Lee Schmidt v. State of Iowa, 909 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2018).
· cites it 12× “Iowa Code § 822.6 . At the time the court ruled on the State’s motion, it decided the case as a matter of law relying on our jurisprudence that defendants who knowingly and voluntarily plead guilty cannot attack their pleas with challenges extrinsic to the pleas.”
Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 2002).
· cites it 18× “Iowa Code § 822.6 . As is apparent from this language, two methods are available for disposition of postconviction relief applications without a trial on the merits.”
Martin Shane Moon v. State of Iowa, 911 N.W.2d 137 (Iowa 2018).
· cites it 4× “The State moved for summary dismissal of Moon's second postconviction-relief application *142 pursuant to section 822.6. The State argued the application was untimely under the three-year statute of limitations set out in section 822.”
Cathryn Ann Linn v. State of Iowa, 929 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 2019).
· cites it 4× “The summary disposition record does not contain a number of pieces of evidence which the trial transcript suggests were admitted into evidence, including an audio recording of Linn's 911 call, a video or audio recording from a police officer's squad car and body camera or…”
Gamble v. State, 723 N.W.2d 443 (Iowa 2006).
· cites it 9× “On October 23, 2003, the district court appointed an attorney and further directed that, [pjursuant to Iowa Code section 822.6, counsel shall review the application with the applicant and determine if the application contains a proper claim for relief or whether the applicant…”
Lopez-Penaloza v. State, 804 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “” Iowa Code section 822.6 provides: “Within thirty days after the docketing of the application, or within any further time the court may fix, the state shall respond by answer or by motion which may be supported by affidavits.”
Summage v. State, 579 N.W.2d 821 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 822.6 (1995). A fact issue is generated if reasonable minds can differ on how the issues should be resolved, but if the conflict in the record consists only of the legal consequences flowing from undisputed facts, entry of summary judgment is proper.”
Collins v. State, 588 N.W.2d 399 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 822.6 . Although Collins did not raise an ineffective-assistance claim in his postconviction relief application, that is not necessarily fatal.”
Whitsel v. State, 525 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 2× “See Iowa Code § 822.6 . Briefs and affidavits were filed by the parties.”
Poulin v. State, 525 N.W.2d 815 (Iowa 1994).
· cites it 4× “Normally an application for postconviction relief will be set for hearing, proof will be received at the hearing, and, after completing the hearing, the court will make specific findings and conclusions of law and then enter an appropriate order.”
Rivers v. State, 615 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 2000).
· cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 822.6 (1997); see also Poulin v.”
Francisco Villa Magana v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 26× “at *1 (quoting Iowa Code § 822.6 (2)). Under that method, the court must “indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and the reasons for dismissal.”
— Iowa Code § 822.6(1) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 822.6(2) — 12 cases
Francisco Villa Magana v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2022).
“at *1 (quoting Iowa Code § 822.6 (2)). Under that method, the court must “indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and the reasons for dismissal.”
— Iowa Code § 822.6(3) — 15 cases
Francisco Villa Magana v. State of Iowa (Iowa Ct. App. 2022).
“at *1 (quoting Iowa Code § 822.6 (2)). Under that method, the court must “indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and the reasons for dismissal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.