State of Iowa v. Derek Alexander Westwater, 20-0691

Background

Derek Westwater pleaded guilty to delivery of methamphetamine (class B felony) as part of a plea agreement: the State would dismiss a second charge, ask for a five-year mandatory minimum, and recommend the new sentence be served concurrently with an existing sentence in a separate case.
At sentencing, the prosecutor recommended the five-year mandatory minimum but did not expressly recommend concurrent service; the court ordered the sentence to run consecutively to the other sentence.
Westwater appealed, asserting trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the State’s alleged breach of the plea agreement at sentencing.
The court addressed whether Westwater had good cause to appeal and whether Iowa Code § 814.7 barred direct-review of his claim in light of recent authority.
The court concluded the prosecutor breached the plea agreement (the State’s remarks were insufficient to convey the promised concurrent recommendation), vacated the sentence, and remanded for a new sentencing hearing before a different judge.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Does Westwater have good cause to pursue a direct appeal of the sentencing issue?	State: Good-cause threshold not satisfied if plea/conviction challenged.	Westwater: He challenges only sentencing not guilty plea.	Held: Yes — sentencing challenge qualifies as good cause under Boldon.
2. Does Iowa Code § 814.7 bar direct appellate review of the claim?	State: § 814.7 limits review; claim should be reserved for postconviction relief.	Westwater: Plea-breach at sentencing is a sentencing error reviewable on direct appeal.	Held: § 814.7 does not preclude review; Boldon controls.
3. Did the prosecutor breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend concurrent sentences?	State: Prosecutor referenced the PSI and plea agreement and recommended the five-year term; no breach.	Westwater: The State promised to recommend concurrency but was silent at sentencing, breaching the agreement.	Held: Breach — reference to PSI/plea agreement as to the five-year term did not satisfy promise to recommend concurrent sentencing.
4. Is ineffective-assistance-of-counsel relief required for this claim to be reviewed?	State: Claim should be framed and preserved as ineffective assistance for postconviction review.	Westwater: He raised ineffective-assistance argument but contends direct review of breach is available.	Held: No need to treat as IAC; a prosecutor’s breach at sentencing irreparably taints the proceeding and is reviewable on direct appeal; remedy is vacatur and resentencing before a different judge.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2021) (prosecutor’s plea‑agreement breach at sentencing is a sentencing error reviewable on direct appeal and requires vacatur and resentencing)
State v. Frencher, 873 N.W.2d 281 (Iowa 2015) (prosecutor must present and commend recommended sentence to give defendant the benefit of the bargain)
State v. Horness, 600 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1999) (prosecutor’s obligation to formally support promised sentencing recommendations)
State v. Bearse, 748 N.W.2d 211 (Iowa 2008) (prosecutors must carry out plea obligations in good faith)