State of Iowa v. Carol Sweat A/K/A Carol English
16-0437
| Iowa Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- Defendant Carol Sweat (aka Carol English) had a deferred judgment revoked and was convicted of two counts of neglect of a dependent person (Iowa Code § 726.3) and one count of possession of methamphetamine (Iowa Code § 124.401(5)).
- The district court imposed concurrent sentences: up to 10 years for the neglect counts and up to 1 year for the possession count.
- Sweat pleaded guilty to possession; she did not file a motion in arrest of judgment challenging the plea colloquy or notification of collateral consequences.
- Sweat argued her guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the court failed to advise her of surcharges and driver's license suspension consequences (per State v. Fisher).
- Sweat also argued the district court abused its discretion by imposing incarceration rather than suspending sentences after revocation of deferred judgment.
- The district court had advised her in writing and during the plea colloquy about the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment and to consult counsel about it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sweat) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea was knowing and voluntary because court failed to advise of all penal consequences | The plea was valid; defendant was advised and failed to file a motion in arrest of judgment | Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court did not advise of surcharges and license suspension | Waived: defendant failed to move in arrest of judgment after being properly advised; plea challenge barred on appeal |
| Whether sentencing to incarceration was an abuse of discretion | Sentence is within statutory bounds and the court acted within discretion | Court abused discretion by not suspending sentence | No abuse of discretion: sentence authorized, court considered relevant factors; mere disagreement insufficient to reverse |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (court must advise defendant of certain collateral consequences; failure to move in arrest of judgment can waive the issue)
- State v. Worley, 297 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1980) (defendant informed of procedural requirement to file motion in arrest of judgment may be precluded from later challenging plea)
- State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (sentencing within statutory parameters is presumptively valid; reversal only for abuse of discretion)