STATE v. PERRY (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-09-01No. No. 19-1844

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appeal was dismissed because Perry, having entered a guilty plea without good cause to appeal and without preserving her claims through a motion in arrest of judgment, had no right of appeal, and the court lacked authority to consider ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal.

Lindsey Perry pleaded guilty to first-offense operating while intoxicated, a serious misdemeanor carrying a maximum fine of $1,250. Her written plea form, however, incorrectly stated the maximum fine as $1,875. On appeal, Perry argued her plea was not knowing and voluntary due to this discrepancy in the stated maximum penalty, and she also challenged whether sufficient factual basis supported her plea. Perry acknowledged that she had not preserved either issue by filing a motion in arrest of judgment before appealing.

Perry attempted to overcome the lack of preservation by arguing that her attorney was ineffective for failing to file the motion in arrest of judgment. The court rejected this approach on two independent grounds. First, Iowa law provides that a defendant who pleads guilty lacks a right of appeal absent good cause, and the court found Perry had none. Second, even if good cause existed, the court lacked authority to decide ineffective assistance of counsel claims on direct appeal—such claims must be raised through a separate collateral attack proceeding, not on direct review.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a guilty plea was knowing and voluntary when written plea form misstated maximum penalty
Whether factual basis supported guilty plea
Whether ineffective assistance of counsel claim preserves appellable issues when motion in arrest of judgment not filed
Whether direct appeal is proper vehicle for ineffective assistance claims

Procedural posture

Perry appealed her conviction following a guilty plea to first-offense operating while intoxicated, raising claims about the validity of her plea that were not preserved at trial.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Lindsey Perry appeals her conviction, following a guilty plea, of first-offense operating while intoxicated. The crime amounted to a serious misdemeanor, punishable by, among other things, a fine of $1250.

Iowa Code § 321J.2(3)(c). Perrys written guilty plea, a form, provided the maximum fine for serious misdemeanors was $1875. See Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(b) (providing fine for serious misdemeanors in the event a specific penalty is not provided).

Also, a box was checked next to “OWI 1st,” and the fine listed in the “Additional minimum sentence” column was $1250. Lastly, the written plea noted the plea agreement called for a $1250 fine.

Based on the foregoing, Perry claims her plea was not knowing and voluntary because her written guilty plea incorrectly stated the maximum penalty for her serious misdemeanor offense was $1875, as opposed to $1250. She also claims her plea was not supported by a sufficient factual basis. She agrees error was not preserved on either claim because no motion in arrest of judgment was filed.

So she argues her counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge her plea. See Treptow, 960 N.W.2d at 109 (“We have allowed a defendant to indirectly challenge his guilty plea on appeal despite not filing a motion in arrest of judgment “if the failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel.” ” (citation omitted)).

The State responds Perry has no right of appeal because she pled guilty and lacks good cause. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3). We agree. See Treptow, 960 N.W.2d at 109 (finding a legally sufficient reason lacking because the court could not provide relief on appeal when defendant failed to file a motion in arrest of judgment). The State also asserts we have no authority to consider ineffective assistance claims on direct appeal. See Iowa Code § 814.7. We agree with that proposition as well. See Treptow, 960 N.W.2d at 109 (“[T]his court is without authority to decide ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.”). We dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

. “However, in the discretion of the court, if no personal or property injury has resulted from the defendants actions, the court may waive up to six hundred twenty-five dollars of the fine when the defendant presents to the court a temporary restricted license issued pursuant to section 321J.20.” Iowa Code § 321J.2(3)(c) (2019). The court may also order unpaid community service in lieu of all or a portion of the fine. Id. § 321J.2(3)(c)(2).

. Section 903.1(1)(b) was amended, effective July 15, 2020, to increase the maximum fine for serious misdemeanors to $2500. 2020 Iowa Acts ch. 24, § 46(1)(b).

. Perry filed a pro se motion in arrest of judgment and a pro se notice of appeal simultaneously. The district court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion in arrest of judgement. See State v. Mallett, 677 N.W.2d 775, 776 (Iowa 2004) (“[A]n appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction.”). Perry makes no claim she was not adequately advised of the consequences of not filing a motion in arrest of judgment and is thus excepted from the error-preservation requirement. See State v. Treptow, 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021).

SCOTT, Senior Judge.