Najee Devontae James v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1641
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

Najee Devontae James,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County,
The Honorable Terry Rickers, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Raya D. Dimitrova of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, attorney for
appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.
Opinion by Vogel, S.J.

1
VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Najee James appeals the summary dismissal of his postconviction
relief (PCR) application, arguing he is actually innocent of forgery and
identity theft. On our review, we conclude James does not present newly
discovered evidence sufficient to overcome the three-year statute of
limitations for PCR actions set forth in Iowa Code section 822.3 (2023).
Even if James’s claim were not time-barred, he has failed to prove his actual
innocence by clear and convincing evidence. We therefore affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In January 2017, a motel clerk in Newton contacted the police about a
call from J.H. reporting that his credit card had been used without
authorization to rent a room at the motel. J.H.’s credit card number matched
the number used by a woman named Tyler Wilson to rent a room. Wilson
checked into the motel with a male companion, later identified as James.

Police contacted J.H., who reported he was in possession of his credit
card but received notifications of unauthorized purchases at several
businesses in Newton, including the motel. Officers then went to the motel,
located Wilson and James’s room, and stood outside. While outside the
room, officers heard sounds resembling a credit card imprinting machine.

The officers knocked on the door, and Wilson eventually answered.
James was also in the room. In plain view, officers observed several credit
cards, including one with J.H.’s credit card number and Wilson’s name.

Officers obtained and executed a search warrant on the hotel room and
James’s rental vehicle. Upon execution of the search warrant, officers
located other evidence associated with forgery and identity theft in both the
motel room and the vehicle.

2
In April, James pled guilty to one count of forgery and one count of
identity theft. He did not appeal. The three-year period for James to file a
PCR application expired in April 2020.

On March 24, 2023, James filed a PCR application. On May 9, 2024,
the State filed a motion for summary judgment asserting James’s application
had no basis for relief under Iowa Code section 822.2. James resisted,
abandoning his original claims but asserting he was actually innocent of the
crimes based on newly discovered evidence, thereby seeking to avoid the
three-year statute of limitations of section 822.3. He supported his argument
by filing three affidavits as evidence.

On October 1, after hearing arguments on the matter with James
present, the district court concluded that the affidavits did not present newly
discovered evidence sufficient to overcome the three-year time bar, and
further James did not establish actual innocence. The district court granted
summary disposition and dismissed James’s PCR application. James
appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

“We review summary dismissals of [PCR] applications for errors at
law.” Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2018). To the extent
James’s actual-innocence claim “raises constitutional questions, our review
is de novo.” Dewberry v. State, 941 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 2019).

III. Analysis.

James argues that newly discovered evidence establishes he is actually
innocent. “[F]reestanding claims of actual innocence permitted by the Iowa
Constitution are available to applicants even though they pled guilty.”

3
Schmidt, 909 N.W.2d at 795. To succeed on an actual-innocence claim, “[a]n
applicant must show by clear and convincing evidence that, despite the
evidence of guilt supporting the conviction, no reasonable fact finder could
convict the applicant.” Dewberry, 941 N.W.2d at 5 (cleaned up). In short,
James must show he “is factually and actually innocent.” Id. (citation
omitted).

An actual-innocence claim must be brought within three years under
Iowa Code section 822.3 unless an exception to the statute of limitations
applies. Id. at 5; see also Iowa Code § 822.3 (establishing statute of limitations
and exceptions). One exception to the statute of limitations is newly
discovered evidence. See Iowa Code § 822.3 (“[T]his limitation does not
apply to a ground of fact . . . that could not have been raised within the
applicable time period.”). To prevail on a newly discovered evidence claim,
an applicant must show, by a preponderance of the evidence,
(1) that the evidence was discovered after the verdict; (2) that it could not
have been discovered earlier in the exercise of due diligence; (3) that the
evidence is material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or
impeaching; and (4) that the evidence probably would have changed the
result of the trial.

See Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 151 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). When
the evidence “was available to the applicant or could have been discovered
with due diligence within the limitations period” the new evidence does not
overcome the statute of limitations. Quinn v. State, 954 N.W.2d 75, 77 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2020).

As his allegedly newly discovered evidence, James submitted three
affidavits: one from himself, one from his sister Niya James, and one from
Brandon Hurd, a mutual friend of James and Wilson. James alleges these
affidavits show that he is actually innocent of forgery and identity theft.

4
None of the affidavits present newly discovered evidence. James’s
affidavit complains about his prior attorney, his decision to take a plea
agreement, and the perceived lack of evidence against him. Niya James’s
affidavit attests that she saw Wilson in possession of the equipment “days and
months prior to the arrest.” She also alleges that James “does not have the
brain capacity” to commit the crimes. Similar to Niya’s affidavit, Brandon
Hurd’s affidavit attests to his belief that Wilson was the “mastermind” of the
crimes and James lacked the mental capacity to commit the crimes.

As did the district court, we conclude that the affidavits merely
“contain information and allegations that James already had available to him
when he was prosecuted in 2017.” The affidavits do not present newly
discovered evidence to overcome the three-year statute of limitations set
forth in Iowa Code section 822.3. For that reason, James’s claim is time-
barred and must be dismissed.

Even if James’s claim were not time-barred, he has not presented clear
and convincing evidence that he is actually innocent of the crimes. As the
district court concluded,
The State’s answer/reply to James’[s] resistance to the motion for
summary disposition accurately describes why James’[s] affidavits fail to
sustain a free-standing actual innocence claim. In summary, the affidavits
describe Wilson as the mastermind behind the fraudulent credit card
operation while characterizing James as a slow-witted dupe who could not
possibly be capable of being involved in such an operation. However, the
assertions in the affidavits regarding Wilson’s culpability are not sufficient
to provide clear and convincing evidence of James’[s] innocence.
James’[s] conviction could be sustained regardless of whether he was the
principal behind the bogus credit card operation or an aider and abettor of
Wilson’s scheme. At the very least, James was providing transportation
for Wilson as they went to different places to skim credit card information
and create bogus credit cards.

5
We agree with the district court that none of the information contained
in the affidavits negates “both the direct evidence and circumstantial
evidence of James’[s] guilt.” For these reasons, the district court did not err
in summarily dismissing James’s PCR application.

IV. Conclusion.

Because James’s PCR claim is barred by the statute of limitations and
because he has failed to show actual innocence, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

6