Matthias Marcel Boyd v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0145 Filed August 6, 2025

MATTHIAS MARCEL BOYD, Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Mitchell E. Turner,

Judge.

A postconviction-relief applicant appeals the district court’s order dismissing

his application on the State’s motion to dismiss. AFFIRMED.

Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant.

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

General, for appellee State.

Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and

Buller, JJ.  2

AHLERS, Presiding Judge.

A woman obtained a domestic-abuse protective order against Matthias

Boyd that prohibited him from having contact with her. The woman later filed

applications seeking to hold Boyd in contempt for violating the order. Following a

hearing, the court determined that Boyd violated the protective order by “40

discrete and individual acts of contempt.” The court held Boyd in contempt of court,

imposed a sentence for each act of contempt, and ordered the sentences to be

served consecutively, resulting in a total jail term of 370 days.

Boyd filed this postconviction relief (PCR) action to challenge the contempt

findings. The State filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that PCR was not available

for contempt sanctions. Boyd resisted the motion. The PCR court granted the

State’s motion and dismissed Boyd’s application. The court concluded that,

because Boyd was found in contempt of court and not guilty of a crime, he is not

a “person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a public offense,” as

required by Iowa Code section 822.2(1) (2023). As a result, the court concluded

Boyd could not pursue PCR proceedings to challenge the contempt findings.

Boyd appeals. He contends his PCR trial counsel was ineffective for failing

to argue that he was entitled to PCR because article I, section 10 of the Iowa

Constitution guarantees the right to effective counsel in civil contempt proceedings.

Boyd concedes he did not preserve error on this issue by raising it with the PCR

court, but he contends he was not required to do so because PCR trial counsel

cannot be expected to raise a claim of counsel’s own ineffectiveness.

Even in PCR cases, issues must be both raised and decided by the district

court before we can decide them on appeal. Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856,  3

862 (Iowa 2012). There is an exception to this error-preservation rule when the

appealing PCR applicant alleges the applicant’s PCR trial counsel was ineffective.

Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018). But that exception does not

apply if “the record on appeal is inadequate to address the new claim of ineffective

assistance of postconviction counsel.” Id.

The State argues the record is inadequate to address Boyd’s claim of

ineffective PCR trial counsel here, so the exception in Goode does not apply. The

State points out that, even though the issue Boyd seeks to address on appeal

involves a legal question, he is still required to prove that (1) PCR trial counsel

breached an essential duty by failing to raise the issue to the PCR court; and (2) if

PCR trial counsel had raised it, there is a reasonable probability that it would have

resulted in a successful PCR action.

We find the record inadequate to address Boyd’s claim. The record does

not tell us whether Boyd’s PCR trial counsel considered raising the issue Boyd

raises on appeal or whether counsel declined to do so as a reasonable judgment

based on existing law. Counsel should be given the opportunity to explain before

being labeled ineffective. See State v. Coil, 264 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978)

(“Even a lawyer is entitled to his day in court, especially when his professional

reputation is impugned.”). Boyd failed to preserve error on his claim.

We also note that, even had Boyd preserved his claim, his claim fails on the

merits. Boyd is challenging a contempt sanction, and a contempt action cannot be

challenged in a PCR action because a person subjected to a contempt sanction is

not a “person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a public offense” as

required by Iowa Code section 822.2(1)(a). See McDonald v. State, No. 20-0908,  4

2022 WL 470360, at –3 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2022) (finding a PCR action

cannot be used to challenge a finding of contempt); Jaeger v. Dubuque Cnty.,

No. 06-0738, 2007 WL 750559, at (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 14, 2007).

Because Boyd failed to preserve error on the issue he raises, and because

PCR is not available to challenge a contempt finding, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.