from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J.
Holwerda, District Associate Judge.
Purtilo appeals following his guilty plea to public
intoxication, third or subsequent offense.
C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines,
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.
VAITHESWARAN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Purtilo entered a written plea of guilty to the aggravated
misdemeanor crime of public intoxication, third or subsequent
offense. See Iowa Code §§ 123.46(2),
123.91 (2018). The district court accepted the plea,
adjudged Purtilo guilty, and ordered him incarcerated for a
period not exceeding two years.
appeal, Purtilo argues the protocol for stipulations to prior
convictions for sentencing enhancement purposes "should
be extended to [his] case." See State v.
Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 40 (Iowa 2017); see also
State v. Smith, 924 N.W.2d 846, 852 (Iowa 2019);
State v. Brewster, 907 N.W.2d 489, 494 (Iowa 2018);
State v. Coleman, 907 N.W.2d 124, 147 (Iowa 2018).
The State responds that Purtilo failed to preserve error by
filing a motion in arrest of judgment. Harrington,
893 N.W.2d at 43 ("[W]e hold that offenders in a
habitual offender proceeding must preserve error in any
deficiencies in the proceeding by filing a motion in arrest
agrees he "did not file a motion in arrest of
judgment," but he argues "[t]here is nothing in the
guilty plea form" that indicated his plea to "2
prior" convictions "was tied to the right to
challenge that so-called stipulation through a
motion." See Smith, 924 N.W.2d at 851
("[N]o offender in a habitual offender stipulation
proceeding should suffer Harrington's error
preservation sanction unless the court has complied with its
duty under Harrington to inform the offender that
challenges to the stipulation proceedings must be raised in a
motion in arrest of judgment and the failure to do so
precludes raising those challenges on appeal.");
State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 681 (Iowa 2016)
(stating a written waiver would suffice as an adequate
substitute in certain misdemeanor cases). To the contrary,
the guilty plea form Purtilo signed informed him he would
have to file a motion in arrest of judgment "at least
five days before sentencing" and "[o]therwise it
will be too late." The form also stated he would
"have no appeal and no other way to complain about the
way the court accepted [his] plea" at a later date.
Finally, the form stated he gave up "the right to file a
motion in arrest of judgment." Because Purtilo was
advised that his failure to challenge the plea by filing a
motion in arrest of judgment would foreclose his right of
appeal and he nonetheless relinquished his right to file the
motion, error was not preserved, and we decline to consider
his challenge to the manner in which the sentencing
enhancements were imposed.
affirm Purtilo's conviction, judgment, and sentence for
public intoxication, third or subsequent offense.
 Section 123.91 was amended effective
July 1, 2019 to eliminate the enhancements for second and
subsequent alcoholic ...