State of Iowa v. Justin Pattison

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 19-2152 Filed July 21, 2021 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUSTIN PATTISON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Richard D. Stochl (plea) and John J. Bauercamper (sentence), Judges. Justin Pattison appeals following his guilty pleas to possession of marijuana, third offense, as a habitual offender; operating while intoxicated, second offense; driving while barred; and two counts of child endangerment. REVERSED AND REMANDED. John J. Sullivan of Sullivan Law Office, P.C., Oelwein, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. 2 VAITHESWARAN, Judge. Justin Pattison pled guilty to possession of marijuana, third or subsequent offense, as a habitual offender, a class “D” felony. See Iowa Code § 124.401(5) (2019). He later entered written guilty pleas to several other offenses.1 Pattison appealed following imposition of sentence. On appeal, Pattison contends “the district court failed to substantially comply with the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) and (d) regarding [his] guilty plea to the” possession charge, “rendering [his] guilty plea as unknowing, involuntary and without a factual basis.” The State preliminarily responds that “Pattison has not established good cause to appeal his guilty plea.” We will begin with the State’s response. Effective July 1, 2019, a defendant has a right to appeal from a final judgment of sentence, except under several specified circumstances, including “[a] conviction where the defendant has pled guilty.” Id. § 814.6(1)(a)(3). The provision “does not apply to . . . a case where the defendant establishes good cause.” Id. Pattison’s pleas and sentencing took place after the effective date of the statute. See State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Iowa 2021) (stating the new statute applies to cases where the judgment was entered on or after July 1, 2019). 1 The written plea was filed two months after the guilty plea proceeding involving the possession charge. However, an “order following guilty plea” filed on the day of the plea proceeding involving the possession charge indicated Pattison entered a plea to the other crimes as well. The transcript of the plea proceeding reflects an intent to enter pleas to those offenses, but no formal entry of pleas to the other crimes on that date. 3 Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(d) requires a court to “inform the defendant that any challenges to a plea of guilty based on alleged defects in the plea proceedings must be raised in a motion in arrest of judgment.” Rule 2.24(3)(a) states, “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.” The State concedes the district court “fail[ed] to inform Pattison, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(d), of the need for and requirements of filing a timely motion in arrest of judgment.” The State’s argument in support of circumventing this omission is …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals