State of Iowa v. Dominick R. Marcott
16-0869
| Iowa Ct. App. | Dec 21, 2016Background
- On June 21, 2015, Dominick Marcott was stopped for speeding, produced a non-driver ID, and was arrested after officers discovered his license was revoked and he was barred from driving.
- Charged with habitual-offender operating while barred (aggravated misdemeanor) and driving while license denied or revoked (serious misdemeanor).
- Marcott submitted a written guilty plea on November 25, 2015; the court accepted the plea and scheduled sentencing for March 23, 2016. Marcott later missed the sentencing date; a warrant issued, and sentencing ultimately occurred May 13, 2016.
- Marcott appealed, challenging (1) adequacy of plea advisement (statutory minimums/maximums, surcharge, consecutive sentences), (2) preservation of plea challenges given no motion in arrest of judgment, (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for not filing such motion, and (4) sufficiency of the court’s stated reasons for sentence.
- The court affirmed convictions, preserved ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction proceedings, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing because the sentencing order contained only boilerplate reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marcott’s guilty plea was defective for lack of personal advisement of statutory minimums/maximums (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b)) | State: The written plea form and signature sufficiently conveyed penalties; no in-court colloquy required when written waiver complies. | Marcott: The plea form did not conclusively show he was informed of penalties (unchecked lines), surcharge, or possibility of consecutive sentences. | Court: Conviction stands; the form did not conclusively establish advisement as to some items, so plea-challenge preserved for ineffective-assistance review but not resolved on direct appeal. |
| Whether Marcott preserved plea defects by filing a motion in arrest of judgment (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a)) | State: Marcott failed to move in arrest; his written waiver complied with rule 2.8(2)(d) and thus bars appeal on that ground. | Marcott: He was not personally informed of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment; alternatively, counsel’s ineffectiveness excused the failure. | Court: The written plea substantially complied with rule 2.8(2)(d) and would normally preclude appeal; but ineffective-assistance claim may excuse lack of preservation and is preserved for PCR. |
| Whether Marcott received ineffective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to object or file a motion in arrest of judgment | State: No clear record showing counsel failed duties; ineffective-assistance claims generally not resolved on direct appeal. | Marcott: Counsel breached duty by not ensuring advisements (penalties, surcharge, consecutive sentences) and not filing motion in arrest, causing prejudice. | Court: Review de novo but record is silent on what counsel or court told Marcott; cannot resolve prejudice on direct appeal—preserve claim for postconviction relief. |
| Whether the sentencing court adequately stated reasons for the sentence (Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d)) | State: Agreed remand required under controlling precedent because record lacks adequate reasons. | Marcott: Sentence justification on record was insufficient; plea agreement alone is boilerplate and inadequate. | Court: Sentence vacated and remanded for resentencing because the written order contained only boilerplate language and lacked specific, adequate reasons. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meron v. State, 675 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2004) (motion in arrest of judgment required to preserve plea challenge absent proper advisement)
- Fisher v. State, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (substantial compliance with written waiver and advisement requirements mandatory)
- Straw v. State, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (court must ensure plea is voluntary; counsel must correct omissions)
- Barnes v. State, 652 N.W.2d 466 (Iowa 2002) (written plea waivers can foreclose appeal if compliant)
- Rodriguez v. State, 804 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2011) (ineffective-assistance exception to preservation)
- Thacker v. State, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (boilerplate sentence reasons insufficient; remand required)
- Hill v. State, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (sentencing court should give detailed, individualized reasons)
- Thompson v. State, 856 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 2014) (if defendant waives reporting, written order must state reasons)
- Myers v. State, 653 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 2002) (substantial compliance required for plea advisements)
- Finney v. State, 834 N.W.2d 46 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Clay v. State, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (ineffective-assistance claims usually preserved for PCR)
- Johnson v. State, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (preserve ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction relief when record inadequate)
- Anfinson v. State, 758 N.W.2d 496 (Iowa 2008) (Strickland two-part test applied in Iowa)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1985) (to show prejudice in plea context, defendant must show probable different outcome)
- State v. White, 587 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 1998) (defendant must be aware of direct consequences such as consecutive sentences)