from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David N. May,
defendant appeals following his guilty pleas.
Cathleen J. Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Des Moines, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Cason appeals following his guilty pleas to two separate
charges of possession of a controlled substance-marijuana
with the intent to deliver and third-degree burglary.
Background Facts and Proceedings
2016, the State filed thirteen separate charges against Cason
under various case numbers. Ultimately, Cason agreed to plead
guilty to two separate charges of possession of a controlled
substance-marijuana with the intent to deliver, in violation
of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2016), and third-degree
burglary, in violation of Iowa Code section 713.6A. The
possession charges carried the habitual offender sentencing
enhancement. See Iowa Code § 902.8. Pursuant to
the written plea agreement, all of the remaining charges and
cases were dismissed. The plea agreement recommended the
imposition of fines and a combined sentence of incarceration
of thirty-five years, with a mandatory minimum of six years.
After a hearing on the record, the district court accepted
Cason's plea and sentenced him in accordance with the
terms of the plea agreement.
appeals, asserting the district court's plea colloquy was
insufficient and his counsel was ineffective in failing to
object to the district court's errors. See Iowa
R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b).
Standard of Review
to guilty pleas are ordinarily reviewed for the correction of
errors at law. State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680
(Iowa 2016). We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
claims de novo. State v. Gant, 597 N.W.2d 501, 504
asserts the district court erred in failing to advise him of
the total amount of fines he would owe to the State, in
failing to inform him of the period of revocation of his
driver's license, in failing to ask him whether he was
under the care of a psychiatrist or physician, and in failing
to establish whether he was represented by counsel in one of
his previous felony convictions. The State asserts Cason
failed to preserve error because he was sentenced immediately
and he waived the right to file a motion in arrest of
judgment under the plea agreement. Alternatively, Cason
claims his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object
to the district court's errors. State v. Straw,