McKinley Dudley Jr. v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0231
Filed April 29, 2026
_______________

McKinley Dudley Jr.,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County,
The Honorable Rustin Davenport, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell,
attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Chicchelly, J.
CHICCHELLY, Judge.

McKinley Dudley Jr. appeals from the order dismissing his application
for postconviction relief (PCR). He contends the district court abused its
discretion by granting the State’s motion to dismiss without appointing him
counsel or holding a hearing on the motion. We affirm.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Dudley applied for PCR and appointment of counsel in
November 2024. Dudley alleged that the State improperly fined him
restitution following his 2021 conviction for third-offense operating a motor
vehicle while under the influence as an habitual offender. See State v. Dudley,
No. 21-1725, 2022 WL 3907760, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022). In his
application, Dudley also referred to fines imposed on convictions that are
over ten years old. See State v. Dudley, No. 09-1772, 2010 WL 3157757, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2010); State v. Dudley, No. 10-1764, 2013 WL 105331,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013).

Within a week of Dudley filing his application, the district court
entered an order expressing doubt as to whether Dudley had stated a claim
on which relief can be granted. See Iowa Code § 822.6(2) (2024) (allowing
the court to inform the parties of its intent to dismiss a PCR application and
the reasons why if it believes the applicant is not entitled to PCR and no
further purpose would be served by further proceedings). The court noted
two impediments to granting Dudley PCR: (1) no fine was imposed against
Dudley for his 2021 conviction and (2) the two convictions that imposed
fines were well past the three-year limitation period set out in Iowa Code
section 822.3. The court directed the State to respond to Dudley’s
application by answer or motion and granted Dudley thirty days to respond
to the State. It refused to take further action on Dudley’s PCR application or
request for court-appointed counsel until it was decided that Dudley had
stated a claim on which relief can be granted.

The State moved to dismiss Dudley’s application on the basis cited in
the court’s order. Dudley resisted the motion, arguing that the State could
not show that he must pay restitution in the three cases cited in his
application. The district court granted the State’s motion.

SCOPE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review PCR applications for errors at law. Moon v. State, 911
N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018). Summary judgment is proper if there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law. Id. As the moving party, the State bears the
burden of showing there is no genuine dispute as to the material facts. See id.
We review the evidence in the light most favorable to Dudley as the
nonmoving party, and we draw all legitimate inferences from the record in his
favor. See id. at 142–43.

DISCUSSION
Dudley raises two claims on appeal. First, he contends that the court
erred by dismissing his PCR application without first appointing counsel.
Second, Dudley contends that the court erred by granting the State’s motion
to dismiss without a full hearing on the merits of his PCR claims.

I. Was Dudley entitled to court-appointed counsel?

Iowa Code section 822.5 allows PCR applicants to apply for
appointment of legal representation if the applicant has no means of paying
for it. But section 822.5 does not require payment of legal representation for
an indigent PCR applicant. Wise v. State, 708 N.W.2d 66, 69 (Iowa 2006)
(“In interpreting this section, this court has said that ʻan attorney need not
always be appointed to represent an indigent postconviction applicant.’”
(quoting Furgison v. State, 217 N.W.2d 613, 615 (Iowa 1974))). Rather, the
decision of whether to appoint counsel is a matter that rests within the
district court’s discretion. Id.

In deciding whether to appoint counsel to an indigent PCR applicant,
the court must read the application in the light most favorable to the applicant
and appoint counsel if a substantive issue of law or fact may support granting
PCR. Furgison, 217 N.W.2d at 615–16. But if an application does not raise a
claim on which PCR can be granted, “it is wasteful to appoint counsel to
determine solely if the applicant has some grounds for relief not stated in his
original application.” Id. at 615 (citation omitted). For example, the court
need not appoint counsel if a PCR application on its face is barred by the
statute of limitations. Fuhrmann v. State, 433 N.W.2d 720, 722 (Iowa 1988).

When viewed in the light most favorable to Dudley, his PCR
application did not reveal a substantive issue of law or fact that would support
granting PCR. To the extent that Dudley raised PCR claims based on
convictions that occurred more than ten years ago, the statute of limitations
barred relief. And Dudley’s application alleged facts that were false. As a
result, the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint
Dudley counsel.

II. Was Dudley entitled to a full hearing on the merits of Dudley’s
PCR claims?

Dudley next contends the district court erred by dismissing his PCR
application without holding a full hearing on the merits. While “[a] PCR
action should not be dismissed without notice from either the State or the
court and an opportunity for the inmate to respond,” Smith v. State, 32
N.W.3d 6, 7 (Iowa 2026), the district court did notify Dudley by filing its
order proposing dismissal with a week of him filing his PCR application. And
dismissal without hearing on the merits is the proper procedure when the
applicant is not entitled to PCR and no purpose would be served by any
further proceedings. See Iowa Code § 822.6(2). Although Dudley had a
chance to reply to the proposed dismissal, he advanced no reason for the
proceedings to continue. Because Dudley did not raise any claims on which
PCR could be granted, the court did not err by dismissing his application
under section 822.6(2).

AFFIRMED.