Robert Lee Starks v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0383
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

Robert Lee Starks,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County,
The Honorable Clinton R. Boddicker, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Matthew L. Noel of Noel Law Office, Dubuque, attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Ahlers, P.J., and Buller and Sandy, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

1
BULLER, Judge.

Robert Starks pled guilty to three counts of sexual abuse in the third
degree, class “C” felonies in violation of Iowa Code section 709.4(1)(b)(2)
(2020). He sought postconviction relief, asserting the criminal court “made
a[n] err[or]” and challenging the minutes of testimony, the victim’s
credibility, and whether he should have been shown certain evidence.

The State moved for summary disposition under section 822.6.
Following some procedural wrangling, the court concluded there were no
disputed facts and the State was entitled to judgment as a matter of law
because Starks’s claims were barred by section 822.8. The court also
observed that Starks’s application did not claim trial counsel was ineffective
or cite any reason he could not have raised his claims on direct appeal.

Starks appeals, claiming there was a “question of disputed fact”
because he believes the plea transcript suggests “there was a disconnect
between [him] and his attorney.” He goes on to allege that the postconviction
court should have concluded counsel failed in certain essential duties,
including preparing him for the plea hearing. But the postconviction court is
correct that Starks did not raise any claim of ineffective assistance in his
postconviction application. And while he made a reference to ineffective
assistance in a memorandum resisting summary disposition, this did not
serve to amend his then-two-year-old application. See Nuzum v. State, 300
N.W.2d 131, 132–33 (Iowa 1981) (recognizing that postconviction-relief
filings are governed by the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure).

Because Starks’s sole claim on appeal asserts ineffective assistance at
trial, and he did not plead that claim below, we have nothing to review.

AFFIRMED.

2