Deven Lucas Deschepper v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: June 18, 2025
• Docket: 24-0172
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0172 Filed June 18, 2025

DEVEN LUCAS DESCHEPPER, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John Telleen, Judge.

Deven Deschepper appeals the denial of his application for postconviction

relief. AFFIRMED.

Thomas M. McIntee, Williamsburg, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Benjamin Parrott, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., Buller, J., and Doyle,

S.J.* Telleen, S.J., takes no part.

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025). 2

DOYLE, Senior Judge.

Deven Deschepper appeals the denial of his application for postconviction

relief (PCR) from his convictions for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver

and possession of methamphetamine. He contends he received ineffective

assistance from his trial counsel, and he challenges his sentence. We review PCR

rulings for correction of errors at law, but we review claims involving constitutional

rights de novo. See Sothman v. State, 967 N.W.2d 512, 522 (Iowa 2021). On de

novo review, we give weight to the PCR court’s findings although we are not bound

by them. See id.

We start with a brief history of the proceedings leading to the PCR ruling.

Deschepper pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and

possession of methamphetamine in exchange for dismissal of three additional

charges. The State agreed to recommend probation and not resist a deferred

judgment. The sentencing court denied Deschepper’s request for deferred

judgment and ordered him to serve five years for possession of marijuana with

intent to deliver and 365 days for possession of methamphetamine. It suspended

the sentences, which it ordered Deschepper to serve consecutively. Deschepper

challenged his sentences on direct appeal, which this court affirmed. State v.

Deschepper, No. 18-2188, 2020 WL 1049860, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2020).

Deschepper then applied for PCR. He claimed his trial counsel was

ineffective in advising him on pleading guilty in four respects: (1) by not advising

him to accept a possible “offer” to dismiss the charges if he went to prison on

charges pending in Illinois; (2) by enticing him to plead guilty by guaranteeing he

would receive a deferred judgment; (3) by filing a written guilty plea that had been 3

executed months prior; and (4) by allowing the court to accept a written guilty plea

to a misdemeanor where consent to waive his personal presence was not set forth

in writing. The PCR court rejected the first two arguments because there was

never an offer to dismiss the charges based on an Illinois prison sentence and

counsel never guaranteed deferred judgment. The PCR court also found

Deschepper failed to prove his counsel did not have permission or authority to file

the written guilty plea or that he could only waive his right to personal presence in

writing. Deschepper resurrects these arguments on appeal, but we concur with

the PCR court and find no further purpose would be served by duplicating its ruling.

In his PCR application, Deschepper also alleged that the sentencing court

relied on improper factors in imposing his sentences. The PCR court rejected his

claim, noting that it was raised to and rejected by this court on direct appeal.

Because Deschepper is barred from relitigating the issue in his PCR proceeding,

we also affirm on this basis. See Holmes v. State, 775 N.W.2d 733, 735 (Iowa Ct.

App. 2009); see also Iowa Code § 822.8 (2022).

Finally, Deschepper asserts two claims on appeal that were either not

raised to or decided by the PCR court. “It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate

review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court

before we will decide them on appeal.” Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862

(Iowa 2012) (citation omitted). Because Deschepper did not preserve error for our

review, we will not consider these arguments for the first time on appeal. Sandoval

v. State, 975 N.W.2d 434, 438 (Iowa 2022).

For these reasons, we affirm under Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d) and (e).

AFFIRMED.