NICHOLES v. STATE (2018)

We granted the State’s petition for rehearing and now withdraw our original opinion. On further consideration, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals because it concluded Charles Nicholes’s plea of guilty did not allow him to make an absolute innocence claim. See Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 798 (Iowa 2018).

We affirm, however, the district court’s decision dismissing Nicholes’s postconviction action on its merits. The district court concluded,

However, [Nicholes] openly concedes that he was aware his trial counsel had not yet fully interviewed witnesses at the time of his plea, and that the [Nicholes] instead made the decision to plead guilty. ․ [Nicholes] certainly could have raised this issue in a postconviction proceeding within three years from his conviction “and thus [the issue was] available to be addressed then.” Lopez-Penaloza v. State, 804 N.W.2d 537, 542 (Iowa 2011).

We agree with these findings of fact and its conclusion of law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

This opinion shall not be published.

PER CURIAM.