from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael
G. Dieterich, District Associate Judge.
Luckett appeals following conviction of absence from custody.
VACATED IN PART AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin Guddall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Luckett appeals following conviction of a violation of Iowa
Code section 719.4(3) (2016), absence from custody. He
contends there is insufficient evidence he "was
knowingly and voluntarily absent from the place he was
required to be." Luckett also argues the district court
failed to give adequate reasons for imposing consecutive
719.4(3) provides: "A person who has been committed . .
. to a jail . . ., who knowingly and voluntarily is absent
from a place where the person is required to be, commits a
January 20, 2016, Luckett was granted a furlough from the Des
Moines County Jail to visit the Iowa Workforce Development
for a job search. The order authorizing his furlough
Defendant is granted a furlough to visit Iowa Workforce
Development (IWD) . . . and shall travel in a direct route to
and from this address, and only to this address. The furlough
shall be on Thursday, January 21, 2016, and Friday January
22, 2016, beginning each day at 8:00 a.m. Defendant shall
report back to the jail within four hours. If he does no job
searches, he must report back by 11:00 a.m. He must provide
written document[ation] for all places at which he searches
for employment. Defendant shall be responsible for obtaining
his/her own transportation but his transportation and the
driver must be approved in advance by the jail staff.
Defendant may not go to any residence during the furlough or
associate with others that are not prospective employers or
members of IWD. If the Defendant has a job interview or needs
additional time to search he can renew his request with more
specifics. The Court declines to extend an open ended
furlough to a person serving jail time or being held on bond
pending hearing. Any violation of this Order or the other
orders of the jail staff shall result in immediate suspension
of the furlough.
January 22, Luckett checked out of the Des Moines County Jail
at 7:57 a.m. and checked back in at 5:00 p.m. Upon returning
to the jail, Luckett provided documentation that he had job
interviews while on furlough; the last interview ended at
January 25, Correctional Officer Brenda Schnedler spoke with
Luckett about the furlough. Luckett told her he knew he had
been five hours late. When she explained that he could face
charges over it, "he laughed about it and said, no, they
can't do anything, but they can take away my furlough.
I'm only here for another forty-five days. It doesn't
matter to me."
was charged with a violation of section 719.4(3). A jury
found him guilty, and the district court sentenced Luckett to
365 days in jail to be served consecutive to another
sentence. Luckett now appeals.
argues his trial counsel did not offer effective assistance
of counsel and failed to make a specific objection to the
sufficiency of the evidence he knowingly and voluntarily was
absent from a place where he was required to be. His defense
was that the furlough order indicated a violation would
result in the revocation of furlough-not the imposition of
criminal charges. And the jail rule relied upon (number 11)
states, "Failure to return to the Correctional Center
will result in a charge of Absent from Custody." He
argues the ...