D'Anthony Ray Curd v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-1730
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1730 Filed July 23, 2025

D’ANTHONY RAY CURD, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Michael Harris, Judge.

An applicant appeals the denial of postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Des C. Leehey, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., and Buller and

Sandy, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

D’Anthony Curd pled guilty to murder in the second degree, a class “B”

felony in violation of Iowa Code section 707.3 (2013), and robbery in the second

degree, a class “C” felony in violation of sections 711.1 and 711.3. He was

sentenced to prison in 2014 and did not file a direct appeal.

Curd filed a first (untimely) postconviction action in 2018, and we affirmed

denial of relief in 2021. Curd v. State, No. 20-0094, 2021 WL 210742, at *2–3

(Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021). He filed a second (again untimely) postconviction

action—the subject of this appeal—in 2023, claiming trial counsel was ineffective

in 2014 for not advising him that failing to directly appeal his conviction would

potentially impact his federal habeas opportunities.

The postconviction court dismissed the second application as untimely,

reasoning Curd could not invoke the new-ground-of-fact-or-law exception to the

statute of limitations because he could have discovered the consequences of not

directly appealing his conviction within the three-year limitations period. We agree.

See State v. Edman, 444 N.W.2d 103, 106 (Iowa Ct. App. 1989) (“Suffice it to say

that [an applicant’s] claimed lack of knowledge is not provided as a ground for

exception from the effects of the statute of limitations.”); cf. Lopez-Penaloza v.

State, 804 N.W.2d 537, 542–43 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (holding a claim of misadvice

on collateral consequences accrues at the time of the plea and cannot be a new

ground of fact or law so as to bypass the statute of limitations). And we affirm

without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).

AFFIRMED.