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. Singleton

Court of Appeals of Iowa

April 3, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CAMERON D. SINGLETON, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith, Judge.

         Cameron Singleton appeals from judgment and sentence imposed upon his convictions for first-degree burglary, stalking in violation of a protective order, and eluding. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

          Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, (until withdrawal) and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.

          POTTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE.

         Cameron Singleton appeals from judgment and sentence imposed upon his convictions for first-degree burglary, in violation of Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.3 (2017); stalking in violation of a protective order, in violation of section 708.11(3)(b)(1); and eluding, in violation of section 321.279(1). We affirm.

         On November 29, 2017, immediately following the jury verdicts on the underlying offenses, Singleton stipulated he was the individual previously convicted of obstructing justice and resisting a peace officer, both Illinois convictions that were class "4" felonies; however, Singleton argued the offenses did not qualify as felonies under Iowa law. The State offered certified copies of the court records into evidence, and Singleton acknowledged he was represented by counsel in each case. The court went through a colloquy with Singleton regarding the prior offenses.

         The court advised Singleton, in part:

And, finally, you understand if you wish to challenge the voluntariness or intelligence of the colloquy today-in other words, your stipulation-you must do so by filing a motion in arrest of judgment, which must be filed prior to five days before your date for sentencing. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. We plan to appeal.

         The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report which, was filed on January 5, 2018.

         On January 10, the sentencing hearing was continued because the trial judge had not yet ruled on whether the prior convictions constituted felonies for the purpose of habitual-offender status. The trial court did find the Illinois ...


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.