DES MOINES &#8212 The Iowa Court of Appeals, on Wednesday, rejected a man’s claim that said he wasn’t adequately represented because his attorney failed to see a sticky-note.

Maury Wilkerson Sr. was convicted of three felony drug charges in July 2001 and sentenced to three consecutive 25-year prison terms.

His sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation.

Court records said he violated the terms of probation at least 14 times.

A Polk County judge revoked Wilkerson’s probation and ordered him to serve the previously suspended sentences consecutively.

Wilkerson filed a motion for reconsideration in March 2003, which was denied.

That day, the presiding judge attached a sticky-note to Wilkerson’s court file reminding himself he might reconsider consecutive sentences if a timely motion was filed, but he would not reconsider revocation of probation.

However, the note was not found in the file until after a one-year deadline to file a motion to reconsider the sentence had passed. A new attorney filed the motion anyway and the district court denied it.

Wilkerson then sent a second request for reconsideration to the district court specifically referencing the sticky-note error. The court denied the request as untimely.

Wilkerson appealed again, claiming his attorney was ineffective because she failed to find the sticky-note when she first reviewed the court file.

The district court dismissed the appeal and Wilkerson took the case to the appeals court.

“We will not declare her actions constitutionally ineffective simply because her investigation did not lead her to a sticky-note in one of the files pertaining to the underlying conviction,” the court said.