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. Haywood

Court of Appeals of Iowa

October 11, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LLOYD R. HAYWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.

         Lloyd Haywood appeals four convictions following his guilty pleas to two charges and jury verdicts finding him guilty of two lesser-included charges.

          Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.

          DOYLE, Judge.

         In 2015, Lloyd Haywood was charged by trial information with seven crimes relating to two separate incidents that occurred the same day. The charges were later severed into two matters to be tried separately. Haywood elected to have a jury trial on the offenses relating to the first incident. The jury found Haywood guilty of two lesser-included offenses and acquitted Haywood of the three other counts. Haywood later pled guilty to the two severed charges related to the second, later incident. He now appeals his convictions. We affirm in part, reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand with instructions.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

         Concerning the first incident, "[v]iewing the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the jury's guilty verdicts, " State v. Romer, 832 N.W.2d 169, 172-73 (Iowa 2013), the jury could have found the following facts in support of their two convictions. In October 2015, law enforcement officers were dispatched to the home of Gina Harkey, Haywood's then girlfriend, after several 9-1-1 calls were made about an ongoing physical disturbance occurring outside her home. Officers learned Haywood lived with Harkey and there had been an altercation involving Haywood, Harkey, and Harkey's two daughters. Harkey's daughters had come to their mother's home with a plan to get Harkey to leave with them and away from Haywood. Ultimately, Haywood was arrested and transported to the Dubuque County jail.

         The second incident occurred after Haywood arrived at the jail and Dubuque County Deputy Sheriff Sara Miller had begun the process of booking Haywood. The minutes of testimony indicate the deputy was documenting information into the computer, and she and Haywood "were separated only by a tabletop/counter." Towards the end of the booking process, Haywood "was venting his frustrations with the arresting officers, . . . pacing back and forth near the bench in the booking room [and] speaking in a loud and agitated tone about police officers." Next, "while Haywood was standing directly in front of [the deputy], . . . Haywood made the comment something similar to 'You guys have always been good to me . . . .' Haywood then took two small steps back and proceeded to retrieve a knife from his person." The knife was described as a "small folding pocket knife." While

holding the knife in his left hand at chest level, . . . [Haywood] then stated, "The f*cking guys in blue are so dumb, they can't even find this knife. . . ." Haywood then took two steps forward towards the counter and towards Deputy Miller and violently stabbed the countertop with the knife. . . . Haywood used such force that it caused the knife to penetrate the wood and remain lodged in the countertop. . . . Haywood then walked back away from the countertop at which time Deputy Miller removed the knife and requested assistance. . . . Haywood went on to tell Deputy Miller, "You know, I could have taken you hostage and got out of jail. . . ." Deputy Miller continued to [complete] the booking process and asked Haywood where he had concealed the knife . . . . Haywood replied the knife was in his back left pocket. . . . [Deputy Miller was asked] . . . if she was in fear for her safety given Haywood's action. . . . Deputy Miller responded, "Yes, " . . . [she] was afraid that Haywood was going to assault her with the knife due to the violent and aggressive behavior he demonstrated when he stabbed the countertop along with the multitude of comments he was making while venting his frustrations with officers about his arrest.

         In addition to public intoxication, a simple misdemeanor, Haywood was subsequently charged by trial information with seven counts, five of which were related to his actions at Harkey's home ("domestic disturbance"): first-degree burglary, domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, and three counts of first- degree harassment.[1] The other two criminal counts-assault with the use or display of a dangerous weapon and first-degree harassment-were based upon Haywood's actions at the jail ("jail disturbance"). Haywood filed a motion seeking to sever the charges and have two separate trials set, one for the counts related to the domestic disturbance, and one for the counts related to the jail disturbance. Following a hearing, the court severed the two matters and ordered two separate trials before different juries.

         Haywood proceeded to trial on the five counts relating to the domestic disturbance in April 2016. The jury found Haywood guilty of only two of the counts, and in both instances, the jury found Haywood guilty of lesser-included offenses of domestic abuse assault (without bodily injury) and third-degree harassment. Haywood was acquitted of first-degree burglary and the two first-degree harassment charges related to Harkey's daughters. That day, the court entered a "Reset Order" setting dates for a pretrial conference and a jury trial in May 2016 concerning the two jail-disturbance counts.

         Sentencing on the convictions relating to the domestic disturbance was continued several times, as was the trial concerning the jail-disturbance counts. On the date set for a pretrial conference concerning the jail-disturbance counts- August 1, 2016-Haywood entered into a written agreement with the State, agreeing he would plead guilty to the two jail-disturbance counts in exchange for dismissal of the public-intoxication charge and a favorable sentencing recommendation by the State. Haywood admits in his brief that, in signing the guilty-plea form, he agreed the minutes of testimony were substantially correct.[2] The form also stated, in relevant part, "DEFENDANT WILL PAY THE FOLLOWING COURT COSTS: Domestic, 3D Degree harasment assault while Display 1st Harassment, Public Intox."

         The sentencing hearing was held as scheduled and reported. The court stated at the outset that Haywood's two convictions relating to the domestic disturbance-domestic abuse assault without bodily injury, second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor, and third-degree harassment, a simple misdemeanor-were set for sentencing that day. The court went on to state:

In addition, two of the other counts in the trial information [relating to the jail disturbance] had been severed out and were not tried to the jury, and since then [Haywood] has reached an agreement with the State. The State's going to make a sentencing
recommendation. [Haywood] has pled to [the two jail-disturbance counts]. [One count] is charged as assault with the use or display of a dangerous weapon . . . .
. . . .
[T]hat's an aggravated misdemeanor, and then [the other count] is harassment in the first degree, also an aggravated misdemeanor, and there is a written guilty plea that [Haywood] signed and was filed on August 1st of 2016. So if I'm right, we're dealing with one simple misdemeanor and three aggravateds for sentencing today.

         Haywood's counsel affirmed that Haywood had pled guilty to the jail-disturbance charges and that the court had accurately classified Haywood's four convictions. After hearing from Haywood and the State, the court sentenced Haywood to a term of incarceration not to exceed two years on each of the three aggravated-misdemeanor convictions, to be served concurrently, but the court suspended the sentences and placed Haywood on informal probation for two years. Haywood was sentenced to thirty days on the simple-misdemeanor conviction and credited with time served. Haywood now appeals.[3]

         II. ...


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.