Michael Linn Schawitsch v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0135
Filed January 23, 2025

MICHAEL LINN SCHAWITSCH,
Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Clinton R.

Boddicker, Judge.

The applicant challenges the summary dismissal of his sixth application for

postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.

Nathan A. Mundy (until withdrawal) of Mundy Law Office, P.C., Des Moines,

and Jamie L. Hunter of Dickey, Campbell, Sahag Law Firm, Des Moines, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
2

GREER, Presiding Judge.

Twenty-five years ago, Michael Schawitsch was convicted of two counts of

first-degree robbery, two counts of unauthorized possession of an offensive

weapon, and one count of first-degree burglary. He was sentenced to a combined

term of incarceration not to exceed fifty years. Schawitsch filed an unsuccessful

direct appeal, on which procedendo issued in October 2001. See State v.

Schawitsch, No. 00-0475, 2001 WL 709444, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. June 13, 2001).

Despite his three-year window to seek postconviction relief closing in 2004, see

Iowa Code § 822.3 (2004), Schawitsch filed this PCR application—his sixth—in

August 2023, summarily challenging his conviction and sentence on various

grounds. The district court dismissed his application as time-barred.

Schawitsch appeals, urging us to overrule our supreme court’s holding that

the statute of limitations is constitutional. See Davis v. State, 443 N.W.2d 707,

710–11 (Iowa 1989) (“[D]ue process requires that the interest of the state and the

defendant be balanced in determining the reasonableness of a period of

limitations. . . . We believe that a three-year period after the conviction or appeal

is final is not unreasonable. We also believe the legislature, within its sound

discretion, may determine the proper limitation period.”). We cannot overrule our

supreme court. See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). We

are bound by its prior rejection of a federal due-process challenge to the statute of

limitations. See Davis, 443 N.W.2d at 710–11. So, we affirm the district court’s

dismissal of Schawitsch’s application without further opinion. See Iowa Ct.

R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), (e).

AFFIRMED.