Roger B. Ennenga v. State of Iowa, 2012 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 45

Arrest on December 23, 2005 for fleeing a police vehicle and possessing methamphetamine; charges of eluding and possession filed December 23, 2005.
Trial information was approved by the district court and provided to Ennenga on January 20, 2006, but not filed with the clerk until February 17, 2006.
Forty-five day speedy indictment deadline under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(a) ran on February 6, 2006; Ennenga did not waive his speedy rights.
The trial information was filed February 17, 2006; the State later added a habitual-offender enhancement and Ennenga pled guilty to the eluding charge on March 3, 2006.
Ennenga later challenged the sentence via postconviction relief (PCR), arguing trial counsel failed to move to dismiss the untimely filing, resulting in ineffective assistance.
The district court denied PCR, the court of appeals affirmed, and the Iowa Supreme Court granted review to determine whether counsel’s failure to dismiss based on Rule 2.33 constitutes ineffective assistance and whether the indictment was timely found.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial information can be ‘found’ before filing.	Ennenga argues filing is not required for ‘found’; information given to him suffices.	State contends under Schuessler the finding requires filing and approval, not just notice.	Found requires both approval and filing; filing occurred February 17, 2006.
Whether counsel’s failure to move to dismiss was an essential duty and prejudicial.	Ennenga contends counsel failed to protect speedy-indictment rights, prejudice shown.	State argues delay was minor and no prejudice needed to prove violation.	Counsel breached an essential duty; prejudice shown because dismissal would have barred prosecution.
Whether there was good cause for the delay in filing the information.	State contends clerical error/second arrest justified delay.	Defense asserts no credible good-cause justification.	No credible good cause shown; delay not justified.
Whether Ennenga waived his speedy-indictment rights by pleading within 45 days.	He did not waive; plea occurred within deadline.	Plea could constitute waiver.	No waiver; rights preserved; withdrawal of plea possible if 2.33 violated.
Whether, if information timely filed, the outcome would differ due to ineffective assistance.	PCR would be granted; timely filing would have required dismissal.	Not addressed directly; focus is on whether delay was excused.	But for counsel’s failure to raise, rule 2.33 would require dismissal; plea not voluntary.

State v. Schuessler, 561 N.W.2d 40 (Iowa 1997) (found requires filing; timing hinges on filing date)
State v. Utter, 803 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2011) (ineffective-assistance standard; counsel must ensure rule 2.33 compliance)
Petersen, 288 N.W.2d 332 (Iowa 1980) (State bears burden to show good cause for delay)
Sassman, 226 N.W.2d 809 (Iowa 1975) (clerical delays generally not good cause)
State v. Hathaway, 257 N.W.2d 735 (Iowa 1977) (good cause for delay when judges out of town)
State v. Moritz, 293 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 1980) (complexity of motions can be good cause)