Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-0420 Filed September 2, 2026 _______________ Dennis Wayne Ruppe, Applicant–Appellant, v. State of Iowa, Respondent–Appellee. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, The Honorable Richard H. Davidson, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Brian Scott Munnelly, Omaha, Nebraska, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Bower, S.J. 1 BOWER, Senior Judge. A jury convicted Dennis Ruppe of attempted murder, willful injury causing serious injury, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, and criminal mischief. This court affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. See State v. Ruppe, No. 22-2002, 2024 WL 2042174, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 8, 2024). A few months later, he filed an application for postconviction relief, claiming newly discovered evidence, that his sentence was unconstitutional, and counsel provided ineffective assistance. The State filed a motion for summary judgment, and the court granted the motion after a hearing. On appeal, Ruppe renews his claims of newly-discovered evidence. To prevail on this claim, Ruppe had to show by a preponderance of evidence (1) that the evidence was discovered after the verdict; (2) that it could not have been discovered earlier in the exercise of due diligence; (3) that the evidence is material to the issues in the case and not merely cumulative or impeaching; and (4) that the evidence probably would have changed the result of the trial. Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 151 (Iowa 2018) (citation omitted). But the evidence Ruppe wants considered is video from his own Ring camera, which he asserted would show a year of harassment, abuse, and criminal mischief by the victim against Ruppe. He does not explain how this evidence “could not have been discovered earlier in the exercise of due diligence,” and we find he has not met his burden on this claim. See id. Next, he urges us to reconsider whether minimum sentences constitute cruel and unusual punishment based on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We have already declined to apply Bruen under the same arguments Ruppe now urges. See Cue v. State, No. 24- 1654, 2025 WL 1824647, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. July 2, 2025). As we observed 2 there, “Bruen is not a magic talisman reopening litigation of every constitutional right for prison inmates, and it is no basis for relief on [these] claims.” Id. We reject this claim for the same reasons as in Cue. Last, Ruppe implies a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. He briefly discusses actions he thinks counsel should have taken, but he offers no substantive argument establishing (or even mentioning) the required elements—breach of duty and prejudice—that he would have to prove to support his claim. See, e.g., Trane v. State, 16 N.W.3d 683, 692 (Iowa 2025) (describing the elements). “When a party, in an appellate brief, fails to state, argue, or cite to authority in support of an issue, the issue may be deemed waived.” State v. Adney, 639 N.W.2d 246, 250 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). With no argument to address, to the extent this claim was raised, we find it waived. AFFIRMED. 3