Jeremy William Lillich, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
This text of Jeremy William Lillich, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa (Jeremy William Lillich, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1531 Filed June 10, 2015
JEREMY WILLIAM LILLICH, Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L.
Poulson, Judge.
An applicant appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the
State which dismissed his PCR action. AFFIRMED.
Matthew R. Metzgar of Rhinehart Law, P.C., Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Mark Campbell, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ. 2
MULLINS, J.
Jeremy William Lillich filed an application for postconviction relief (PCR)
raising various claims. The State filed a motion for summary judgment. After a
hearing, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the PCR action.
Lillich appeals, claiming trial counsel was ineffective for failing to mail him a letter
informing him of a plea offer made by the State.
Lillich gave trial counsel the telephone numbers of two females and told
trial counsel to call them if she wanted to contact him. Trial counsel’s records
showed numerous phone call attempts to the numbers Lillich provided that were
never successful in contacting Lillich. He claims trial counsel should have mailed
him a letter to a post office box, but he offers no evidence that he regularly
retrieved mail from that box. He does not deny that trial counsel attempted to
contact him in the manner he had directed—by phone calls to his female
friends—but he claims she was ineffective for failing to mail a letter.
Upon our examination of the record and briefs, we conclude the district
court identified and considered all the issues presented. The district court found
trial counsel had acted reasonably in attempting to contact Lillich by phone as
instructed by Lillich, especially given the limited time frame provided by the State
within which to respond to the plea offer. We approve of the reasons and
conclusions in the district court’s opinion and affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(d) and (e).
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Jeremy William Lillich, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeremy-william-lillich-applicant-appellant-v-state-iowactapp-2015.