Rickie Lee Slinger, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
This text of Rickie Lee Slinger, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa (Rickie Lee Slinger, 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. 14-0195 Filed June 10, 2015
RICKIE LEE SLINGER, Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, James M. Drew,
Judge.
Rickie Slinger appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, and Kimberly L. Birch, Special Prosecutor, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ. 2
BOWER, J.
Rickie Slinger appeals the district court’s denial of his application for
postconviction relief (PCR) claiming newly discovered evidence entitles him to a
new trial. In 2006, Slinger was charged with one count of sexual abuse in the
second degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree; a jury found
him guilty on all counts. He appealed the conviction, and our supreme court
found the appeal frivolous and dismissed it. Slinger filed an application for PCR
claiming his trial counsel was ineffective. The district court denied the
application, and Slinger appealed. We affirmed the district court’s denial. 1 In
June 2012, Slinger filed a second application for PCR and (after withdrawing two
of his claims) claimed he was entitled to a new trial due to newly discovered
evidence relating to a witness for the State. The district court dismissed Slinger’s
application. Slinger now appeals.
Slinger claims “newly discovered information” concerning a trial witness
entitles him to a new trial. The trial witness in question, a social worker, met with
Slinger on two occasions. She gave testimony at trial regarding statements
made by Slinger during those meetings. Subsequently, the Iowa Board of Social
Work Examiners charged the social worker with practicing social work at a level
requiring a master’s degree and her license was placed on probation. She
entered an Alford plea to one count of second-degree fraudulent practices and
was granted a deferred judgment.
1 Slinger v. State, No. 10-1338, 2011 WL 6058447 at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 7, 2011). 3
The district court dismissed Slinger’s application for PCR for three
reasons: the “newly discovered evidence” related to matters that occurred after
his trial, even if the evidence existed at the time of trial it would only be relevant
to impeach the witness’s testimony, and Slinger cannot establish the probability
of a different result if a new trial was granted. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(d), we approve the district court ruling and affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Rickie Lee Slinger, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickie-lee-slinger-applicant-appellant-v-state-of--iowactapp-2015.