Terry Joseph Christner, Applicant–Appellant, v. State of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee. (2026)

Terry Christner appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his third postconviction-relief (PCR) application, asserting the dismissal was improper because the district court failed to provide a hearing or notice. Upon our review, we affirm.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Following his plea of guilty in three felony criminal cases, Christner filed his first PCR application, asserting he received ineffective assistance of counsel. After a PCR trial was held in district court, the court dismissed the application. Christner did not appeal the ruling.

Christner then initiated his second PCR action, alleging that counsel from his first PCR proceeding was ineffective for failing to notify Christner of the dismissal, which caused Christner to miss his opportunity to appeal. Christner also argued that the three-year statute of limitations under Iowa Code section 822.3 (2024) was unconstitutional because of the United States Supreme Court's ruling in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The State moved for summary judgment, arguing Christner's application was barred by the statute of limitations in section 822.3. The district court agreed, finding Bruen did not save Christner from the statute-of-limitations language in section 822.3, and as such, Christner's second application was time-barred. Christner did not appeal.

Christner then filed a third PCR application, the subject of this appeal. Christner claims that counsel was ineffective for failing to notify him of the dismissal of his second application, again resulting in Christner not having an opportunity to file an appeal. Christner, as before, argues that 822.3's statute-of-limitations provision is unconstitutional under Bruen. Christner also requested the appointment of counsel. The district court instructed Christner and his counsel to “file a recasted Application for Post Conviction Relief no later than June 5, 2025, stating Applicant's specific claims for relief. In the alternative, counsel may file a statement that no recasted petition will be filed.”

On March 12, 2025, the State filed a motion for summary disposition, asserting this third application for PCR was beyond section 822.3’s three-year statute of limitations. The State also argued that Christner failed to allege new facts or law related to his previous convictions that would exempt his claims from the statute of limitations, and that Bruen did not apply to his statutory right to counsel. Christner did not file a resistance to the motion. The district court granted the State's motion on March 27, 2025. Christner now appeals.

II. Analysis

Christner raises arguments on appeal: (1) the district court was required to notify him before dismissing the application and failed to do so; (2) the district court was required to provide Christner fifteen days to resist the State's motion; (3) the district court improperly granted the State's motion prior to the June 5 deadline for Christner to recast his application; and (4) Bruen renders section 822.3’s statute of limitations unconstitutional. The State argues that error is not preserved on these claims. We agree.

Here, the State's motion for summary disposition argued that section 822.3’s statute-of-limitation provision barred Christner's third PCR application. The district court granted the motion fifteen days after it was filed, with a lack of resistance to the motion by Christner. Christner did not file a motion to reconsider with the district court.

“An important consideration of error preservation is for the district court to have an opportunity to consider the issue raised on appeal.” Otterberg v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins., 696 N.W.2d 24, 28 (Iowa 2005). “[I]t is fundamentally unfair to fault the trial court for failing to rule correctly on an issue it was never given the opportunity to consider.” Id. (citation omitted).

When a district court considers issues raised on appeal by the nonmoving party “in ruling on an uncontested summary judgment motion,” then the nonmoving party need not file a post-judgment motion to preserve error. Id. But, if the district court enters judgment following a summary disposition motion and does not address claims raised on appeal by the nonmovant, “the nonmovant must at least preserve error by filing a motion following the entry of judgment, allowing the district court to consider the claim of deficiency.” Id. (quoting Bill Grunder's Sons Constr., Inc. v. Ganzer, 686 N.W.2d 193, 197–98 (Iowa 2004)).

Here, the claims were not addressed by the district court before or after it entered judgment on the State's motion for summary disposition. And the State's motion did not preemptively consider these claims. While these claims arose only after the order was entered, Christner was required to present those claims to the district court through a post-judgment motion to reconsider. See id. Accordingly, the district court never had the opportunity to rule on these issues raised on appeal and so error was not preserved. See id. (finding an issue raised on appeal not preserved because it “was never considered by the district court”).

Regarding Christner's claim that Bruen exempts him from the statute of limitations under section 822.3, we also agree with the State that the issue was not preserved.¹ Although Christner cites Bruen in his brief, the only quasi-substantive argument relating to Bruen states:

The argument raised [at the previous PCR proceeding] is essentially the same as raised in the instant case, that the statute of limitations imposed by Iowa Code § 822.3 violates the applicant's right to Due Process and Counsel as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution under a Bruen analysis, and any statutory limitation is therefore, unconstitutional.

“A party forfeits an issue on appeal when the party fails to make more than a perfunctory argument in support of the issue.” State v. Jackson, 4 N.W.3d 298, 311 (Iowa 2024). And “[a] party forfeits an issue on appeal when the party fails to cite any authority in support of the issue. Id. Christner's brief failed to make argument in support of his Bruen claim, his argument is perfunctory, and he fails to cite any authority to support the claim, except Bruen. Christner did not pinpoint, quote, or analyze any of Bruen’s language or holdings when asserting his argument. Accordingly, Christner's Bruen issue is waived. See id.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons above, we affirm the district court's summary dismissal of Christner's third PCR application.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Even if Christner had preserved this issue, our court has repeatedly concluded that Bruen does not extend the time period to file a PCR application. See Burnett v. State, No. 24-0724, 2025 WL 2237277, at *1 n.2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2025) (collecting cases).

Opinion by Schumacher, J.