Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Trostel

Court of Appeals of Iowa

June 7, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RYAN DAVID TROSTEL, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Thomas W. Mott, Judge.

         A defendant appeals his conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED.

          Warren J. Polson of Updegraff & Smith, Newton, and Taylor Rens of Krug & Rens, LLC, West Allis, Wisconsin, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.

          VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

         Ryan Trostel appeals his conviction and sentence, claiming the district court erred in denying his motion to vacate his guilty plea and in denying his motion to continue his sentencing hearing.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         On January 26, 2016, the State charged Trostel with operating while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2015). Initially, Trostel requested court-appointed counsel, but he was not eligible. Trostel then requested and received a continuance, granting him more time to obtain representation. On March 9, Trostel appeared without counsel, signed a written waiver of his right to counsel, and pled guilty as charged. The district court accepted the guilty plea and scheduled sentencing for April 6.

         On April 5, an attorney licensed to practice in Wisconsin sent the court a letter that requested Trostel's sentencing be continued and indicated the attorney intended to file an application to be admitted pro hac vice so he could represent Trostel. The letter also indicated that the attorney planned to investigate the validity of Trostel's guilty plea. The court continued Trostel's sentencing until May 4. The attorney from Wisconsin did not file an application to appear pro hac vice at that time; rather, an attorney licensed to practice in Iowa filed an appearance on April 18. That attorney requested and received two additional continuances of Trostel's sentencing, with sentencing ultimately being scheduled for June 29.

         On June 24, the attorney from Wisconsin filed an application for admission pro hac vice, which was granted the same day. On June 28, the attorney from Wisconsin filed an appearance and motion for continuance. On the same day, the attorney from Iowa filed a motion to withdraw, which was granted. On June 29, prior to the scheduled sentencing hearing, the court denied Trostel's motion to continue sentencing. On the same day, Trostel filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he "plead [sic] guilty because he did not have the financial means to pursue legitimate defenses that he would otherwise would have pursued."[1] The court denied Trostel's motion to withdraw his guilty plea and, after a hearing, entered the conviction and sentenced Trostel to two days in jail and a fine.

         Trostel appeals.

         II. Scope and Standard of Review

         Generally, we review the denial of a motion for a continuance for abuse of discretion. State v. LaGrange, 541 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). However, when a constitutional right is implicated, our ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.