Mark Allan Bitzan v. State of Iowa

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 24-1639
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1639 Filed December 3, 2025

MARK ALLAN BITZAN, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Tod Deck, Judge.

A postconviction-relief applicant appeals the dismissal of his application.

AFFIRMED.

Austin Jungblut of Parrish Kruidenier, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.

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

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and

Langholz, JJ. 2

AHLERS, Judge.

A jury convicted Mark Bitzan of first-degree kidnapping in 2012. This court

upheld his conviction on direct appeal, State v. Bitzan, No. 12-0551, 2013 WL

3273813 (Iowa Ct. App. June 26, 2013), and procedendo issued in

September 2013.

Bitzan applied for postconviction-relief (PCR) in 2014. The district court

denied his application, and this court affirmed. Bitzan v. State, No. 16-1943, 2018

WL 348092 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan 10, 2018).

In 2024, Bitzan brought the instant action, applying for PCR again. This

time the State moved to dismiss Bitzan’s application as time-barred under Iowa

Code section 822.3 (2024). The district court granted the motion. Bitzan appeals.

Section 822.3 requires most PCR claims to “be filed within three years from

the date the conviction or decision is final or, in the event of an appeal, from the

date the writ of procedendo is issued.” But there are exceptions for claims based

on “ground[s] of fact or law that could not have been raised within the” three-year

period. Iowa Code § 822.3. The three-year “limitation does not apply” to those

claims. Id.

Bitzan argues that two of his claims are not barred by section 822.3 because

the new-ground-of-fact exception applies to them. Those claims are that (1) he

recently discovered his friend would not testify at trial because his friend was

purportedly intimidated by law enforcement and (2) he learned that the victim had

been to a counselor around the time of the underlying events that gave rise to

Bitzan’s conviction. 3

To benefit from the new-ground-of-fact exception, Bitzan must show he

“could not have raised the ground of fact within the limitations period.” See Moon

v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 143 (Iowa 2018). “The onus is on” Bitzan “to make this

showing.” Id. But Bitzan’s PCR application does not allege any facts or provide

any explanation as to why he could not have learned of the underlying facts of his

claims within the three-year limitation period. And his appellate brief does not

identify any place in his PCR application where he alleges any such facts or

provides any such explanation. As a result, the district court correctly concluded

that the new-ground-of-fact exception does not apply to either claim. Bitzan’s

application is time-barred by section 822.3.