State of Iowa v. Dennis McKinney, 16-1850

Dennis McKinney pled guilty to extortion (Iowa Code § 711.4) on May 26, 2016, admitting he threatened serious injury to obtain money.
Plea agreement: State dismissed a robbery charge and McKinney was released pending sentencing, subject to strict conditions; sentencing was continued several times.
The court informed McKinney he must file a motion in arrest of judgment within 45 days (and at least 5 days before sentencing) to challenge the plea.
McKinney’s release was revoked after alleged violations; he later filed a motion in arrest of judgment claiming his plea was not voluntary and asserting innocence. The district court denied the motion as untimely and meritless.
On appeal McKinney argued his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered because the court failed to advise him of the 35% surcharge and potential immigration consequences as required by Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b).
The State conceded the court failed to advise on surcharge and immigration consequences but argued McKinney forfeited those claims by not raising them in the motion in arrest of judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McKinney’s guilty plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered where the court failed to inform him of the 35% surcharge	McKinney: plea involuntary because court did not advise of maximum penalty (fine plus 35% surcharge)	State: error was forfeited because not raised in timely motion in arrest of judgment	Court: plea was not voluntary/knowing; conviction vacated and case remanded
Whether failure to advise about immigration consequences rendered plea invalid	McKinney: plea defective because not informed of potential immigration consequences	State: same forfeiture argument; concedes court failed to advise	Court: failure to advise on immigration consequences acknowledged as an issue of consequence (applies fairness exception to preserve review)
Whether McKinney forfeited appellate review by not raising these specific defects in his motion in arrest of judgment	State: claims forfeiture because motion did not raise surcharge or immigration issues	McKinney: contends he lacked adequate notice that those defects had to be preserved by motion	Court: applied fairness exception to preserve review because defendant was not properly apprised regarding preservation requirements
Whether sentencing court erred by considering unproven offenses (alternative issue)	McKinney: sentencing court considered unproven conduct	State: not reached due to plea vacatur	Court: did not address this issue because plea was vacated

State v. Worley, 297 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1980) (fairness exception when defendant had no opportunity to preserve error)
State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980) (preservation excuse where defendant lacked opportunity)
Manley v. State, 278 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 1979) (allowing appeal on fairness basis despite failure to comply with motion requirement)
State v. Smith, 753 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa 2008) (timing rule for motion in arrest of judgment when sentencing is set more than fifty days after plea)
State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (court must inform defendant of applicable surcharges)