Justin Lee Mayo v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 23-2015
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-2015 Filed February 19, 2025

JUSTIN LEE MAYO, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.

Justin Mayo appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief

from his conviction for second-degree theft. AFFIRMED.

John J. Bishop, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

Justin Mayo appeals the denial of his application for postconviction relief

(PCR) from his conviction for second-degree theft. He alleges his trial counsel

was ineffective by allowing him to plead guilty without a factual basis, which is

different from the claim that he raised before the PCR court. Because he did not

preserve error on the claim raised on appeal, we affirm the denial of his PCR

application.

In 2021, Mayo pled guilty to stealing two catalytic converters valued at more

than $1500 and less than $10,000. He filed this PCR application in 2023, claiming

actual innocence. He also claimed his trial counsel was ineffective by allowing him

to plead guilty without a factual basis. At the PCR trial, Mayo’s attorney clarified

that his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim was tied to his claim of actual

innocence because trial counsel allowed “Mayo to plead guilty when he was

actually innocent.” The PCR court denied his application, finding that the record

did not show actual innocence and thus his trial counsel did not render ineffective

assistance by allowing him to plead guilty.

On appeal, Mayo contends his trial counsel was ineffective by allowing him

to plead guilty without a factual basis. He argues that the record before the trial

court did not show the value of the catalytic converters was sufficient to support a

conviction for second-degree theft. This is not the claim that Mayo argued before

the PCR court. Because Mayo did not preserve error, we will not consider the

merits of his argument for the first time on appeal. See Sandoval v. State, 975

N.W.2d 434, 438 (Iowa 2022); Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018)

(“As a general rule, we do not address issues presented on appeal for the first 3

time . . . .”); Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“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.” (quoting

Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002))).

AFFIRMED.