IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 21–1147 Submitted September 15, 2022—Filed October 28, 2022 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. MAURICE EDWARD SALLIS, Appellant. ______________________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David F. Staudt (suppression and limited appearance hearings), George L. Stigler (limited appearance hearing), and David P. Odekirk (trial), Judges. A criminal defendant who was represented by appointed counsel appeals, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress, the refusal of the trial court to permit a retained attorney to enter a limited appearance on his behalf, and the denial of a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. AFFIRMED. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson (argued), Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 2 MANSFIELD, Justice. I. Introduction. This drug case requires us to decide whether an officer’s recollection that a motorist had a driving status of “barred” as of several months before amounted to reasonable suspicion to justify a traffic stop. We are also called upon to address the extent to which trial courts may regulate limited appearances of retained counsel in cases with appointed counsel. An officer pulled over the defendant’s vehicle. The officer had checked the defendant’s driver’s license status two to six months earlier and determined it was barred, but he did not recheck that status before making the stop. Cocaine was found, and the driver was determined to be under the influence; he was charged with several offenses. Because of his indigency, the defendant received appointed counsel. Later, during the lengthy pretrial proceedings, a retained attorney sought to enter two limited appearances for certain pretrial matters, without getting involved in the trial itself. The district court refused to allow these limited appearances. The court also overruled the defendant’s motion to suppress. Following a trial in which he was represented by appointed counsel, the defendant was convicted of all charges. On appeal, the defendant asserts error in the denial of his motion to suppress and the denial of his retained attorney’s requests to enter limited appearances. On our review, we disagree. The officer’s information about the defendant’s driver’s license status, although several months old, gave the officer reasonable 3 suspicion to believe that the defendant was presently engaged in criminal activity by operating a vehicle. On the limited-appearance issue, we decline to decide definitively whether a criminal defendant with appointed counsel has some constitutional right to have a retained attorney enter a limited appearance. Instead, we conclude that if such a right exists, it is subject to reasonable regulation by the district court. Under the circumstances of the case, given the extent to which pretrial proceedings had been prolonged and the potential for further delay and disruption, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the requested limited appearances. Having affirmed these rulings, and because we also affirm the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals