State of Iowa v. Eric Gene Thompson, 14-0561

Eric Thompson pleaded guilty to felony eluding and operating while intoxicated (second offense).
He later appealed, arguing his guilty pleas were not intelligently made because the district court failed to advise him of statutory surcharges for each offense.
Iowa Rule Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b)(2) requires the court to advise defendants of mandatory minimums and maximum punishments; State v. Fisher held disclosure must include applicable surcharges.
Thompson did not file a motion in arrest of judgment challenging the plea below.
He claimed the district court failed to comply with Rule 2.8(2)(d) by not advising that failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment would bar appellate review; the record showed the court explicitly told him to file a motion if he ever wanted to challenge the plea.
The court found the advisement substantially complied with Rule 2.8(2)(d) and therefore Thompson’s claim was not preserved; convictions were affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Thompson’s guilty plea was invalid because the court failed to advise him of surcharges required by Fisher	State: Plea was properly entered and preserved challenges were lacking	Thompson: Plea not intelligent because court did not disclose surcharges tied to offenses	Affirmed: Claim not preserved; court had complied with Rule 2.8(2)(d), so appellate challenge barred

State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (disclosure under rule 2.8(2)(b)(2) must include all applicable surcharges)
State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2004) (court must advise defendant that failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment precludes appellate challenge)
State v. Loye, 670 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 2003) (failure to advise about motion in arrest of judgment can affect preservation)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (substantial compliance standard applies to rule 2.8(2)(d) advisals)