from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B.
Newell, District Associate Judge.
defendant appeals his conviction by guilty plea to
third-degree theft and the resulting sentence.
C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
Hurst appeals his guilty plea to third-degree theft and the
resulting sentence, claiming he received inadequate
information from the court and ineffective assistance of his
counsel. Because Hurst fails to preserve error on any claims
regarding the court and because the record is inadequate to
address his ineffective-assistance claims, we affirm and
preserve those claims for possible future postconviction
Background and Factual Proceedings.
26, 2016, the State charged Hurst with theft in the third
degree by trial information pursuant to Iowa Code sections
714.1(1) and 714.2(3) (2016). On September 13, Hurst pleaded
guilty to the charged offense, and the trial court engaged in
the following colloquy with Hurst:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Hurst, what you have been charged
with is theft in the third degree, and that is an aggravated
misdemeanor. It carries a maximum possible penalty of two
years in an Iowa penal institution and a maximum possible
fine of $6, 250. This charge would carry with it a mandatory
minimum penalty of a $625 fine. That fine could be suspended,
meaning that you would not have to pay that. Mr. Hurst, in
addition to those sanctions, the Court would be required to
impose a $125 Law Enforcement surcharge. And if there is some
restitution due, the Court would also have to order that you
pay restitution. Do you have any questions about the maximum
possible or the mandatory minimum penalties for this offense?
THE DEFENDANT: No, Your Honor, I do not.
THE COURT: And, Mr. Hurst, in order to be found guilty of
theft in the third degree, the State would have to prove that
you did take property that belonged to another person, that
you had the intent to permanently deprive the person of that
property. And then that's a normal theft. But then the
degrees of theft are based on the value of the property
involved. And if the State can prove that the property was in
excess of $500, then it qualifies as a theft in the third
degree. Do you understand what the State would have to prove
in order to find you guilty of this offense?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor, I do.
THE COURT: All right. Is there a plea agreement, ...