Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Eisenhauer, C.J.
Defendant argues his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because the district court failed to inform him of the minimum fine. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Eisenhauer, C.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.
William Blakeman III appeals his judgment and sentence for third-degree burglary, an offense subject to "confinement for no more than five years and in addition" a fine of at least $750 "but no more than" $7500. See Iowa Code § 902.9(5) (2011). Blakeman argues his guilty plea was not knowing or voluntary because the district court failed to inform him of the minimum fine. He requests we reverse his conviction and sentence and remand the case so he can plead anew. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
After the State charged Blakeman with third-degree burglary and also alleged he was a habitual offender, the parties reached a plea agreement. Blakeman agreed to enter a plea of guilty to third-degree burglary. The State agreed to delete the habitual offender enhancement and to recommend suspension of the prison sentence and suspension of the minimum fine.
At the guilty plea hearing, the court informed Blakeman of the "maximum penalty of five years in prison and a maximum fine of $7500." Blakeman acknowledged he understood the maximums. The prosecutor acknowledged the State, under the plea agreement, would be recommending the minimum fine along with suspension of the fine. The court then stated:
So, Mr. Blakeman, I'm going to recite what I understand the terms of the plea agreement to be . . . . At sentencing the State would recommend that any prison sentence in this matter would be suspended. The prison sentence for a Class D felony is not to exceed five years. The State would recommend that you receive a $750 fine but that be suspended as well, so that you would not pay it unless you violated your probation.
Blakeman agreed with the court's statement of the terms of the plea. Blakeman acknowledged the plea agreement is not binding on the court and the court "could, if it thought it was appropriate for any reason, impose a sentence up to and including the maximums." Blakeman pleaded guilty to third-degree burglary, and the court accepted his plea.
Subsequently, Blakeman was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. This appeal followed.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review a claim of error in a guilty plea proceeding for the correction of errors at law. State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004).*fn1
Blakeman argues the court's failure to personally advise him of the minimum applicable fine of $750 rendered his guilty plea unknowing and involuntary. He asserts the court's recitation of a $750 fine as a part of the plea agreement "did not amount to substantial compliance with the court's obligation to ...