State of Iowa v. Antavieon Jackson, 16-1638

In Oct 2015 Jackson and Erika Loftus were captured on bank surveillance making six ATM deposits using empty envelopes and immediately withdrawing funds from Loftus’s account, causing an overdraft.
Jackson was charged with second-degree theft by deception; a first jury hung on Jackson, Loftus was convicted at trial.
Before a second trial Jackson entered an Alford plea to second-degree theft; the court accepted a factual basis based on the minutes of testimony and Jackson’s earlier trial testimony (he admitted depositing five of the six empty envelopes).
Jackson later argued no factual basis existed for the plea (contending envelopes were not empty and relying on State v. Nall), and claimed his counsel was ineffective for allowing the plea.
The court sentenced Jackson to a prison term not to exceed five years, citing his criminal record, recent convictions, poor performance in treatment, and refusal to fully cooperate with the PSI.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found a factual basis for an Alford plea based on the record and declined the ineffective-assistance claim; it also held the sentence was within discretion and supported by the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a factual basis existed for Jackson’s Alford plea to theft by deception	State: minutes of testimony and Jackson’s prior admissions supplied a factual basis for deception and intent	Jackson: envelopes weren’t necessarily empty; relied on Nall to argue deposits authorized and not theft by deception	Held: Factual basis existed (surveillance ID, bank records, Jackson’s trial testimony); Nall (theft by taking) inapplicable to theft-by-deception charge
Whether counsel was ineffective for allowing plea without factual basis	State: counsel had no duty to raise a meritless objection once factual basis existed	Jackson: counsel breached essential duty by permitting a plea lacking factual support	Held: No ineffective assistance — counsel did not err because a factual basis existed; no prejudice shown
Whether the sentence (up to 5 years) was an abuse of discretion	State: sentencing factors (offense nature, record, failure in treatment, lack of PSI cooperation) justified prison	Jackson: sought probation; argued prison was excessive	Held: No abuse of discretion — court considered appropriate factors and provided supported reasons

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (acceptance of guilty plea despite defendant’s assertion of innocence)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
State v. Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785 (Iowa 1999) (pleas, including Alford pleas, require factual basis)
State v. Rivers, 588 N.W.2d 408 (Iowa 1998) (circumstantial evidence may support intent in theft by deception)
State v. Nall, 894 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 2017) (distinguishing theft-by-taking where bank authorization defeats deprivation of property)
State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708 (Iowa 1995) (court need not state reasons for rejecting sentencing suggestions)