951 N.W.2d 1
Iowa2020Background
- May 2017: Welfare check at Thompson's trailer revealed drug paraphernalia, a 4‑year‑old holding knives, unsanitary conditions, and improperly administered Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN); the child tested positive for marijuana and methamphetamine and required hospitalization and port surgery for infection.
- State charged Thompson with child endangerment causing serious injury; she pled guilty to a lesser included aggravated‑misdemeanor child endangerment count and entered a deferred judgment with unsupervised probation, fines, and court‑appointed attorney fees.
- The court set a one‑year status hearing (which was not held); one year later the State filed an application to revoke the deferred judgment based largely on unpaid costs/fees.
- A July 18, 2019 hearing occurred without Thompson present (her new counsel attended); the court revoked the deferred judgment, entered conviction and sentence, but issued no factual findings supporting revocation.
- The State conceded the revocation order lacked required factual findings; Thompson appealed, and the primary jurisdictional question concerned the 2019 amendment to Iowa Code § 814.6 limiting appeals after guilty pleas.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Thompson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Iowa Code § 814.6 (2019 amendment) bars this appeal of a revocation order following a guilty plea | Appeal is barred because defendant pled guilty and the judgment appealed postdates the July 1, 2019 effective date | Good cause exists because Thompson challenges a revocation/sentence issue that arose after plea acceptance | Court applied Damme, held § 814.6 applies but Thompson has "good cause" to appeal (error arose after plea) |
| Whether the district court made sufficient factual findings to support revocation of deferred judgment | Conceded findings were insufficient | Argued revocation violated due process (lack of notice, opportunity to present witnesses) | Court accepted State's concession, vacated revocation and conviction, remanded for new revocation hearing |
| Whether restitution/attorney‑fee order in the deferred judgment was properly imposed without known amounts/ability‑to‑pay analysis | Argued Thompson waived by not seeking timely discretionary review | Argued challenge could be renewed after revocation/entry of new judgment | Court declined to resolve now; directed restitution issues to be addressed to the district court on remand |
| Whether Thompson received adequate notice/opportunity at revocation proceeding (due process) | Not contended in detail because State conceded insufficient findings; issue left unresolved | Argued lack of mailed application and lack of personal presence denied due process | Court did not decide due‑process claim and remanded for a new hearing where such claims can be addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 2020) (interpreting "good cause" in amended § 814.6 to mean a legally sufficient reason and allowing appeals of sentencing errors arising after a guilty plea)
- State v. Lillibridge, 519 N.W.2d 82 (Iowa 1994) (revocation requires written or oral findings showing factual basis due to serious loss of liberty)
- State v. Kirby, 622 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa 2001) (findings supporting revocation may be made orally on the record or in writing)
- State v. Albright, 925 N.W.2d 144 (Iowa 2019) (restitution: court must have all items of restitution before assessing reasonable ability to pay)
- State v. Covel, 925 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2019) (standard of review for revocation: abuse of discretion)
- State v. Wilson, 941 N.W.2d 579 (Iowa 2020) (statutory interpretation reviewed for correction of errors at law)