James Robert McCurdy v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: September 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-0784
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0784 Filed September 17, 2025

JAMES ROBERT MCCURDY, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Jennifer Miller, Judge.

James McCurdy appeals the district court’s order dismissing his untimely

application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Colin McCormack of Van Cleaf & McCormack Law Firm, LLP, Des Moines,

for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

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

Mullins, S.J.*

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

(2025). 2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

James McCurdy groomed and routinely abused a child victim over the

course of eight years. In 2011, a Story County jury found McCurdy guilty of six

counts of sexual abuse. We affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State

v. McCurdy, No. 11-1605, 2012 WL 4901158, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2012).

McCurdy is currently serving a 135-year combined prison sentence, subject to a

70% mandatory minimum.

In October 2023, McCurdy filed an application for postconviction relief under

Iowa Code chapter 822 (2023). Typically, such an application must be filed within

three years of final conviction. Iowa Code § 822.3. But McCurdy challenges the

constitutionality of that rule, arguing section 822.3 violates the “1st, 5th, 6th, 8th,

and 14th Amendments” when scrutinized under the historical-tradition test

discussed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1

(2022). The district court dismissed McCurdy’s application, finding Bruen was

“clearly limited to the Second Amendment.” McCurdy appeals.

Our court has repeatedly declined to second-guess the constitutionality of

section 822.3 based on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Bruen. See, e.g.,

Burnett v. State, No. 24-0724, 2025 WL 2237277, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 6,

2025); Roach v. State, No. 24-0074, 2025 WL 1453349, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.

May 21, 2025); Neal v. State, No. 24-0669, 2025 WL 1321447, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.

May 7, 2025). McCurdy offers no reason for us to do so today. Although he

suggests the historical-tradition test reaches beyond the Second Amendment, he

fails to flesh out any argument for why section 822.3 offends the various

amendments he invokes. We therefore consider his claims waived. See Ledesma 3

v. State, No. 24-0479, 2025 WL 1322681, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 7, 2025)

(finding applicant waived his constitutional challenge to section 822.3 where he

failed to explain how Bruen’s reasoning applied); Thongvanh v. State,

No. 24-0783, 2025 WL 547744, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2025) (same).

Because we decline to consider McCurdy’s undeveloped challenge to

section 822.3, the statute’s three-year limitation is binding in this case. We also

agree with the district court that Bruen is not a “new ground of fact or law” that

might offer McCurdy previously unavailable relief. Iowa Code § 822.3; see also

Burnett, 2025 WL 2237277, at *1; Thongvanh, 2025 WL 547744, at *1. The district

court properly dismissed his untimely application.

AFFIRMED.