from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J.
defendant challenges his sentence as a habitual offender and
the imposition of restitution and a fine. AFFIRMED IN
PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, Jessica Reynolds, County Attorney, and Timothy C.
Meals and Shawna Johnson, Assistant County Attorneys, for
defendant was convicted of second-degree burglary and
stipulated to being a habitual offender. The court sentenced
the defendant as a habitual offender, ordered restitution,
and imposed a fine. On appeal, we conclude the stipulation
was not knowingly and voluntarily made because the
stipulation proceedings did not comply with the requirements
of State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2017).
Accordingly, we must reverse the habitual offender judgment,
the defendant's sentence, and remand the case for further
proceedings consistent with Harrington. See
id. at 45-46. We affirm the uncontested judgment of
guilt on second-degree burglary.
Facts and Proceedings.
September 27, 2017, the State charged Smith with burglary in
the second degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1
and 713.5 (2017), a class "C" felony, and being a
habitual offender in violation of section 902.8. Following
Smith's not-guilty plea, a bifurcated trial on the
burglary charge began on November 28.
the jury was in deliberations, Smith's counsel informed
the court that Smith would stipulate to the predicate priors
for the habitual offender charge. The following exchange
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I just discussed with my
client about the sentencing enhancement charge on the Trial
Information of offense of habitual offender and my client has
decided that he will withdraw his request for a bifurcated
trial and will stipulate to the priors for that particular
section should the jury return a guilty verdict that it would
be applicable to.
THE COURT: Okay. Very well. Mr. Smith, is that correct?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: I told you earlier about the ramifications of
doing that. It's your decision and you voluntarily
decided that you will stipulate to the habitual offender
element of the trial?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you. Anything further on
behalf of the State?
[PROSECUTOR]: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Thank you, Your Honor.
the jury returned a verdict finding Smith guilty of burglary
in the second degree. After the court scheduled sentencing,
further discussion regarding Smith's stipulation
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, [the prosecutor] brought to my
attention a case State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36.
It concerns a Defendant making admissions to the habitual
offender without the State having to prove it up and the
issue of bringing it up in a motion in arrest of judgment or
making an adequate record.
I believe we probably have an adequate record but just to be
safe, it probably would be best to maybe supplement the
record a little bit at this time, that the Defendant did
freely voluntarily ...