not, however, entirely clear what ‘incident to a determination of other issues properly presented’ actually means.” (Footnote omitted.) (quoting Harris, 226 N.W.2d at 234)). Compare Feld, 790 N.W.2d at 78 n. 4 (declining to address issue not presented by the parties), with Feld, 790 N.W.2d at 84 (Appel, J., dissenting) (concluding issue not presented by the parties was “incident to” a determination of properly presented issues because they were inherently intertwined). In my opinion, the issue of whether any of the specific release conditions imposed in this case violated due process is not incident to the issue of whether the imposition of release with restrictions under the statute is constituti to do so and actually brief the issue. See State v. Hoeck, 843 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 2014) (<HOLDING>); cf. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d at 383 (“The
holding ineffective assistance of counsel claims may be decided on direct appeal where the district court has developed a record on the ineffectiveness issue holding that the court will not consider an issue not raised in the district court unless 1 it involves a pure question of law and refusal to consider it would result in a miscarriage of justice 2 the party raising the issue had no opportunity to do so before the district court 3 the interest of substantial justice is at stake 4 the proper resolution is beyond any doubt or 5 the issue presents significant questions of general impact or great public concern holding exception to the waiver rule exists when the issue presented is purely one of law and either does not depend on the factual record developed below or the pertinent record has been fully developed recognizing value of having a fully developed record and full briefing before addressing an issue and noting it would be a disservice to the defendant the state and our system of justice to decide these claims without a thorough vetting of the claims in the district court holding that to exhaust a claim the claims raised at the administrative appeal must be so similar that the district court can ascertain that the agency was on notice of and had an opportunity to consider and decide the same claims now raised in federal court