State of Iowa v. Cory Arden Hursey
16-0187
| Iowa Ct. App. | Oct 26, 2016Background
- On Sept. 19, 2015 Hursey drove a golf cart intoxicated, struck a light pole and entered a lake; officers observed signs of intoxication and a PBT over .08.
- Charged with OWI (count I) and second-degree criminal mischief (count II); Hursey submitted a written guilty plea to OWI and the State agreed to dismiss count II.
- Written plea recited the penalty exposure (max 1 year; minimum 2 days/jail and $1250 fine) and specified plea terms: 15 days in jail (with credit), $1250 fine, 35% surcharge, $10 DARE surcharge, and victim restitution in exchange for dismissal of count II.
- District court accepted the plea, sentenced Hursey (15 days credit, fine, surcharges) and ordered restitution for $200 damage to the light pole associated with count II.
- Hursey appealed, arguing (1) his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not properly informed of consequences and (2) the court erred by ordering restitution for a dismissed count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hursey’s written plea substantially complied with Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(d) re: advising need to file motion in arrest of judgment and consequences | Hursey: written plea did not say filing a motion in arrest would preclude appeal and omitted the word "appeal," so it failed to substantially comply | State: Hursey waived challenge by not filing motion in arrest; written waiver sufficed under Barnes/Meron | Court: Written plea did not substantially comply with rule 2.8(2)(d); Hursey not precluded from appellate challenge |
| Whether the guilty plea was knowing and voluntary regarding mandatory minimums, fines, and surcharges under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b)(2) | Hursey: language (e.g., "and/or") could be read to mean minimum jail or fine rather than both; surcharges may not have been adequately disclosed | State: plea specified minimums and the negotiated sentence; written plea listed surcharges | Court: Substantial compliance found as plea specifically recited the negotiated jail time, fine, and surcharges; plea was knowing and voluntary |
| Whether the district court erred by ordering restitution for damages tied to dismissed count II | Hursey: court may not order restitution for dismissed count; no factual basis for criminal mischief allegedly supporting restitution | State: plea expressly required restitution for count II as part of the bargain; Hursey’s OWI conduct caused the damage; judicial estoppel bars reversal | Court: No error — plea expressly required restitution; causal link between convicted conduct and damage exists; judicial estoppel applies |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (substantial-compliance test for plea advisements)
- State v. Petrie, 478 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1991) (restitution limited to damages attributable to convicted conduct unless plea provides otherwise)
- State v. Moore, 500 N.W.2d 75 (Iowa 1993) (sentencing court must order restitution)
- State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2013) (restitution requires causal relationship between conduct and victim’s damages)
- State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (court must ensure defendant understands necessity and consequences of motion in arrest of judgment)
- State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34 (Iowa 2006) (judicial estoppel prevents inconsistent positions to the prejudice of an adverse party)
- State v. Barnes, 652 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 2002) (written plea waiver can substitute for in-court colloquy in misdemeanors)
- State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2004) (discussing sufficiency of written waivers in plea proceedings)