David Errol Willock v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0014
Filed June 18, 2025

DAVID ERROL WILLOCK,
Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,

David P. Odekirk, Judge.

The applicant appeals the summary dismissal of his third application for

postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., and Langholz and

Sandy, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

In 2005, a jury found David Willock guilty of first-degree kidnapping, first-

degree robbery, and first-degree burglary; he was sentenced to life in prison.

Willock challenged his convictions on direct appeal, and procedendo issued in

2008.1 Accordingly, Willock’s three-year window to seek postconviction relief

(PCR) closed in 2011. See Iowa Code § 822.3 (2011). Yet he filed this PCR action

in July 2023 summarily challenging his convictions. The district court dismissed

his application as time-barred.

Willock appeals, urging us to overrule our supreme court’s holding that the

statute of limitations is constitutional. See Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707, 710–

11 (Iowa 1989) (“[D]ue process requires that the interest of the state and the

defendant be balanced in determining the reasonableness of a period of

limitations. . . . We believe that a three-year period after the conviction or appeal

is final is not unreasonable. We also believe the legislature, within its sound

discretion, may determine the proper limitation period.”). We cannot overrule

precedent from our supreme court. See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa

Ct. App. 2014). We are bound by its prior rejection of a federal due-process

challenge to the statute of limitations. See Davis, 443 N.W.2d at 710–11.

1 Our court has addressed several previous direct appeals related to this case.

See generally State v. Willock, No. 07-1200, 2008 WL 783372 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 26, 2008); State v. Willock, No. 06-0343, 2007 WL 750646 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 14, 2007); State v. Willock, No. 03-1944, 2004 WL 2951988 (Iowa Ct. App.
Dec. 22, 2004). We have also affirmed the denial of Willock’s previous PCR
applications. See generally Willock v. State, No. 19-1393, 2021 WL 4592738
(Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2021); Willock v. State, No. 13-0997, 2014 WL 7343215
(Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 24, 2014).
3

So, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Willock’s application without

further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).

AFFIRMED.