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. Hurst

Court of Appeals of Iowa

September 27, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DAVID MICHAEL HURST, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell, District Associate Judge.

         The defendant appeals his conviction by guilty plea to third-degree theft and the resulting sentence. AFFIRMED.

          Andrew C. Abbott of Abbott Law Office, P.C., Waterloo, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.

          POTTERFIELD, Judge.

         David 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 relief.

         I. Background and Factual Proceedings.

         On July 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, ...

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.