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. Tompkins

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 6, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ROY TOMPKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Russell Keast, District Associate Judge.

         Roy Tompkins appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his plea to one count of operating while intoxicated, second offense.

          Sharon D. Hallstoos of Hallstoos Law Office, LLC, Dubuque, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.

          DOYLE, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         Roy Tompkins appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his Alford plea[1] to one count of operating while intoxicated (OWI), second offense. He contends his plea was not knowing and voluntary. Specifically, Tompkins asserts he was not informed of the mandatory minimum and maximum penalties for the offense.

         Tompkins failed to challenge his plea by moving in arrest of judgment. Ordinarily, this failure precludes a defendant from challenging the plea on direct appeal. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a) ("A defendant's failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty-plea proceeding by motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the defendant's right to assert such challenge on appeal."); State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004) ("Generally, a defendant must file a motion in arrest of judgment to preserve a challenge to a guilty plea on appeal."). However, Tompkins raises his claim under the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric, which is an exception to the error-preservation rule. See Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016).

         In order to prove a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must prove trial counsel failed to perform a duty and prejudice resulted. See State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 869 (Iowa 2003). In the context of a guilty plea, a defendant shows prejudice by proving that, but for counsel's breach, there is a reasonable probability the defendant "would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009). Unless the defendant proves both prongs, the ineffective-assistance claim fails. See State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488, 495 (Iowa 2012). Although we ordinarily preserve such claims for postconviction proceedings, we will resolve them on direct appeal when the record is adequate. See id. at 494.

         A defendant's plea is valid only if the defendant enters it voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See State v. Philo, 697 N.W.2d 481, 488 (Iowa 2005). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) details what the trial court must do to ensure a plea is knowing and voluntary. See State v. Everett, 372 N.W.2d 235, 236 (Iowa 1985). These requirements include informing the defendant of "[t]he mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered." Iowa R. Crim P. 2.8(2)(b)(2). Although the court must inform the defendant of the direct consequences of the plea, "the court is not required to inform the defendant of all indirect and collateral consequences of a guilty plea." State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 682-83 (Iowa 2016) (citation omitted).

         The statute defining the charge of OWI, second offense, states it is punishable by the following:

a. A minimum period of imprisonment in the county jail or community-based correctional facility of seven days but not to exceed two years.
b. Assessment of a minimum fine of one thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars and a maximum fine of six thousand two ...

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.