Brian Andrew Huckfeldt v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-0246
Filed April 1, 2026
_______________

Brian Andrew Huckfeldt,
Applicant–Appellant,
v.
State of Iowa,
Respondent–Appellee.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Jeffrey Farrell, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Pleasant Hill, attorney for
appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua Henry, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Langholz, P.J., Sandy, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Bower, S.J.

1
BOWER, Senior Judge.

In 2003, Brian Huckfeldt pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver, eluding a law enforcement vehicle, second-
degree theft, and two counts of assault on a police officer with a dangerous
weapon. The district court imposed judgment and sentence. Huckfeldt did
not appeal. Twenty years later, Huckfeldt filed this postconviction-relief
application (PCR). Relevant to this appeal, he maintained his guilty pleas
were involuntary because he was “twice found incompetent to stand trial
Legally reckonized [sic] defense recognized in Johnson County Iowa in
2020.”

The State moved to dismiss the application on the ground it “was not
timely filed.” See Iowa Code § 822.3 (2023) (requiring PCR applications to
“be filed within three years from the date the conviction or decision is final
or, in the event of an appeal, from the date the writ of procedendo is issued”).
Huckfeldt resisted the State’s motion, stating he needed additional time to
receive requested mental-health records and investigate “the specific claims
Huckfeldt may have, including claims regarding actions or inactions of
counsel during Huckfeldt’s representation.” Specifically, the resistance
stated: “Huckfeldt is claiming that his case should be reopened because he
has recently been found incompetent to stand trial, and asserts he was also
incompetent at the time of his criminal conviction.” The district court
dismissed the application.

Huckfeldt appeals. The premise of his appeal is because he was found
incompetent in separate proceedings nearly twenty years after his underlying
case, trial counsel may have been ineffective by not investigating his
competency at the time of entry of the guilty plea in 2003. Huckfeldt
challenges the PCR court’s dismissal of his application “without allowing

2
[him] to fully develop the record” on his potential claim. Specifically, he
argues, “Had Huckfeldt’s [PCR] counsel been allowed to investigate
whether he was incompetent at the time of entry of his guilty plea and
remained incompetent over the next two decades, such incompetence could
have been a meritorious claim.”

We focus on the dispositive problem with Huckfeldt’s argument. “In
his appellate brief, [Huckfeldt] asserts no exception to the application of the
three-year statute of limitations to this claim.” Greenup v. State, No. 16-0826,
2017 WL 3505293, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2017). Rather, he
acknowledges he does not have a claim yet because he needs more time to
determine if such claim exists. See Anderson v. State, No. 15-1809, 2016
WL 7403738, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016) (“[E]ven on appeal,
Anderson continues to fail to identify or assert any specific ground of fact or
law that might constitute such an exception.”). Although section 822.3
provides an exception to the three-year limitation for “a ground of fact or law
that could not have been raised within the applicable time period,” there is
nothing in the record to indicate a new ground of fact or law that could not
have been raised within the three-year statute of limitations.1 On review for
the correction of legal error, see Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555, 558–59

1
Indeed, as the PCR court observed, the presentence investigative report (PSI) in
Huckfeldt’s underlying case included “multiple references to [Huckfeldt’s] mental health
problems,” such as Huckfeldt’s report “he had been working [with] a psychologist and
psychiatrist as early as 1999.” However, the court further noted “as of the time of the PSI
interview, [Huckfeldt] reported he was not undergoing mental health treatment, was
taking no medication, and felt his overall health was good.”

3
(Iowa 2002), we conclude the district court did not err in dismissing
Huckfeldt’s untimely application for postconviction relief.

AFFIRMED.

4