from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A.
Haywood appeals four convictions following his guilty pleas
to two charges and jury verdicts finding him guilty of two
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
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
Background Facts and Proceedings.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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. 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."
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.
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