from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Andrew B.
Hoppe appeals from the district court's denial of his
application for postconviction relief.
K. Wilson of Anne K. Wilson Law Office, PLLC, Hiawatha, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Hoppe was arrested and charged with first-degree theft in
connection with the removal of concrete forms from a Cedar
Rapids parking lot. See Iowa Code § 714.2(1)
(2014). Hoppe pled guilty to the charge. The district court
sentenced him to a prison term not exceeding ten years,
suspended the term, and placed him on probation.
appealed. This court affirmed his conviction and preserved
"his ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim for
postconviction-relief proceedings." State v.
Hoppe, No. 14-2096, 2015 WL 5965596, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. Oct. 14, 2015).
filed a postconviction-relief application alleging,
"There is video evidence that shows this is far f[r]om a
first-degree theft." Following an evidentiary hearing at
which Hoppe did not appear, the postconviction court denied
the application. Hoppe appealed.
Ineffective Assistance - Plea Counsel
contends his plea attorney was ineffective in failing to
adequately investigate the value of the stolen concrete
forms, rendering his plea unknowing and unintelligent and
lacking in a factual basis. Hoppe must prove deficient
performance and prejudice. See Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). Where there is no
factual basis, prejudice is presumed. State v.
Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1999).
novo review of the record reveals the following facts. On the
day the trial information was filed, the victim witness
coordinator filed a statement of pecuniary damages incurred
by the concrete company that owned the forms. The statement
listed the value of the stolen property as $32, 872. The
minutes of testimony, also filed the same day, stated that a
representative of the concrete company would testify,
"The value of these concrete forms was approximately
plea hearing, the district informed Hoppe the crime included
an element "that the property had a value of more than
$10, 000." Hoppe said he understood. The court then
asked Hoppe, "[D]o you agree, Mr. Hoppe, that the value
of the property was more than $10, 000?" Hoppe answered,
"Yes." He also confirmed the substantial accuracy
of the minutes of testimony.
originally-scheduled sentencing hearing, Hoppe stated he had
not been afforded an opportunity to view videos of the crime
scene. The district court reset the sentencing hearing and
the prosecutor stated, "[T]he ...