CourtListener 4473392•Dittmar v. State
Full text
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0445
Filed December 6, 2017
CODY KINZIE DITTMAR,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J.
Shubatt, Judge.
A defendant appeals the dismissal of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
Taryn R. McCarthy of Clemens, Walters, Conlon, Runde & Hiatt, L.L.P.,
Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Cody Dittmar appeals from the denial of postconviction relief stemming from
a sentence imposed as part of a plea deal. Dittmar pleaded guilty to unauthorized
possession of an offensive weapon, in violation of Iowa Code sections 724.1(1)(b)
and 724.3, and possession of an offensive weapon by a felon, in violation of Iowa
Code section 724.26 (2011). He claims his consecutive sentences for these
offenses violate the Double Jeopardy clause of the Iowa and United States
Constitutions. The Iowa Supreme Court has already resolved Dittmar’s claims.
See State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 345 (Iowa 1995) (“We think the
legislature intended that a defendant who violates section 724.3 and section
724.26 be punished under both statutes. Consequently, [the defendant] was not
subjected to double jeopardy.”). “We are not at liberty to overrule controlling
supreme court precedent.” State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014).
We affirm the judgment of the district court without further opinion. See Iowa Ct.
R. 21.26(1)(c), (d), (e).
AFFIRMED.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.