State of Iowa v. Adam B. Arterburn
16-1846
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Adam Arterburn pled guilty in writing on October 5, 2016 to one count of absence from custody under Iowa Code § 719.4(3).
- The written plea form stated a plea agreement existed (a signed plea memorandum) and warned that failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment before sentencing would preclude appellate challenge to the plea.
- The plea form listed the penalty range for a serious misdemeanor (up to 1 year jail and fines) and included a written waiver requesting immediate sentencing.
- The district court accepted the written plea (waiving a reported plea hearing), found the plea knowing, voluntary, and with a factual basis, and sentenced Arterburn to 365 days with 330 days suspended, to run consecutively to an existing sentence.
- On appeal Arterburn argued: he was not adequately informed of mandatory plea terms; the missing plea memorandum undermined the voluntariness of the plea; and the court failed to state adequate reasons for ordering the sentence to run consecutively.
- Because Arterburn did not timely move in arrest of judgment, direct challenge to plea adequacy is barred, but he asserted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel as an exception to preservation rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Arterburn) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary given missing plea memorandum | Arterburn: Plea memorandum not in record, so cannot verify he was informed of mandatory terms; plea may be involuntary | State: Missing memorandum can be addressed by remand to clarify record; remedy is not reversal | Court: Remanded for district court to clarify whether sentence merely reflected parties' agreement or whether court exercised sentencing discretion; conviction affirmed but sentence vacated pending clarification |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel excuses lack of motion in arrest of judgment | Arterburn: Counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure plea form/memorandum and advisements were adequate | State: Ineffectiveness claims require adequate record; remand appropriate to develop record | Court: Did not rule on merits of ineffectiveness claim; remanded for factual development; other claims may be raised in postconviction relief |
| Whether court adequately stated reasons for consecutive sentence | Arterburn: Court failed to state sufficient reasons for consecutive sentence | State: Court relied on plea agreement and sentencing factors; record ambiguous without memorandum | Court: Because court referenced the plea agreement as basis for sentence and memorandum is missing, remand required to satisfy Rule 2.23(3)(d) and related precedent |
| Appropriate remedy for missing plea memorandum in record | Arterburn: Record deficiency undermines plea; reversal/vacatur | State: Remand to allow district court to place plea memorandum/details on record or state its sentencing discretion reasons | Court: Ordered remand; conviction affirmed, sentence vacated, and case remanded with instructions to clarify whether sentence merely gave effect to agreement or was an exercise of discretion and to put particulars on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (standard of review for guilty pleas)
- State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (failure to move in arrest of judgment bars direct appeal; ineffective-assistance exception)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (remand procedure when plea agreement terms are not in record)
- State v. Matlock, 304 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1981) (if court has no discretion in sentencing it should so state)