State of Iowa v. Brett Eugene Noble, 19-0072

Brett Noble pleaded guilty to attempted murder, first-degree theft, voluntary manslaughter, and assault while participating in a felony; the district court imposed consecutive sentences.
Noble moved to correct an illegal sentence; the district court denied relief.
On appeal (Noble I), the court of appeals held the attempted-murder and voluntary-manslaughter convictions were based on the same acts against the same victim (multiplicity problem under State v. Ceretti) and remanded, giving the State two options: (1) vacate the voluntary‑manslaughter conviction and resentence on remaining counts, or (2) vacate the plea agreement so the State could reinstate/dismiss charges and proceed anew.
On remand the State chose option (1); the district court vacated the voluntary manslaughter conviction and resentenced Noble on the remaining convictions to an aggregate term not to exceed 40 years.
Noble appealed the remand sentencing order, arguing (a) the court improperly vacated manslaughter (rather than attempted murder) and imposed an illegal sentence in a one‑homicide case, and (b) appellate and resentencing counsel were ineffective for not challenging the court of appeals’ remedy.
The Iowa Supreme Court declined to apply the law‑of‑the‑case bar, reviewed Ceretti and Noble I, and held Ceretti did not categorically require vacating the entire plea; it affirmed Noble’s amended sentence and rejected the ineffective‑assistance claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of amended sentence: May the State elect to vacate the voluntary‑manslaughter conviction and resentence on attempted murder in a single‑homicide case?	State: Noble I authorized two remedies on remand; vacating manslaughter is a permissible remedy and produces a legal sentence.	Noble: Ceretti requires vacating the attempted‑murder conviction (or the plea) because convictions for attempted and completed homicide based on the same acts cannot both stand.	Court: Ceretti did not categorically mandate vacating the entire plea or attempted‑murder conviction; the State’s election to vacate manslaughter produced a legal sentence—affirmed.
Ineffective assistance of counsel for not seeking further review or contesting the remedy on remand	State: Counsel had no breach because the appellate remedy chosen by the court of appeals was permissible under Ceretti.	Noble: Counsel should have challenged the court of appeals’ instruction and the remand result; failing to do so was ineffective.	Court: No breach of essential duty; counsel’s inaction was not ineffective given Ceretti did not require a different remedy.

State v. Ceretti, 871 N.W.2d 88 (Iowa 2015) (cannot convict for both attempted homicide and completed homicide based on same acts; court vacated plea in that case but discussed remedial options).
Noble v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 919 N.W.2d 625 (Iowa Ct. App. 2018) (court of appeals decision remanding with two remedial options).
State v. Ragland, 812 N.W.2d 654 (Iowa 2012) (explaining law‑of‑the‑case doctrine).
State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (illegal‑sentence claims can be raised at any time).
State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778 (Iowa 2006) (ineffective‑assistance claims are excepted from normal preservation and law‑of‑the‑case limits).
Termaat v. State, 867 N.W.2d 853 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (refusing to apply law‑of‑the‑case to an illegal‑sentence claim on similar facts).