Wise v. State

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Debora Sue Wise’s application for postconviction relief. The court held that the district court did not commit prejudicial error by failing to make further inquiry into Wise’s waiver of counsel or by failing to appoint postconviction counsel on its own motion, particularly because her claims were largely waived or contradicted by the plea record.

Holdings

1. Appointment of counsel in an Iowa postconviction proceeding is governed by statute rather than by the state or federal constitution, and the decision whether to appoint counsel rests in the district court's sound discretion. Counsel should be appointed when, after reading the application in the light most favorable to the applicant, a substantial issue of law or fact appears.
2. With limited exceptions, a guilty plea under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) waives all defenses and objections, including ineffective-assistance claims that are not intrinsic to the plea itself. Claims intrinsic to the plea are those bearing on whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.
3. A postconviction applicant is not entitled to a hearing or appointed counsel based solely on allegations that directly contradict the record, unless a minimum threshold question of credibility appears.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court sufficiently inquired into Wise's waiver of her right to counsel in the postconviction proceeding.
2. Whether the district court erred by failing to appoint postconviction counsel on its own motion after Wise appeared unable to represent herself.
3. Whether Wise's guilty plea waived the defenses and objections asserted in her postconviction application, except claims involving irregularities intrinsic to the plea.

Disposition

affirmed