State of Iowa v. James Michael Pryor, 16-1982

Background

On July 11, 2016, James Pryor was charged with driving while barred as an habitual offender (aggravated misdemeanor).
On October 12, Pryor signed and submitted a written petition to plead guilty that stated the plea agreement was a $1000 fine and explicitly warned the court was not bound by the agreement.
The district court accepted Pryor’s guilty plea and informed him of the right to file a motion in arrest of judgment; the court also stated it would not agree to the plea agreement.
At sentencing on November 16, the court first issued an order suspending a two-year sentence, then issued a nunc pro tunc order later that day correcting the suspension and ordering two years’ incarceration.
Pryor appealed, arguing plea counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment after the court refused to follow the plea agreement and (allegedly) did not give him the opportunity to withdraw his plea.
The court resolved the ineffective-assistance claim on the record, focusing on whether the plea agreement was conditioned on court concurrence (which would trigger Rule 2.10 protections).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did counsel breach duty by failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment after court refused plea agreement?	State: No duty where plea was not conditioned on court concurrence.	Pryor: Counsel should have moved to arrest because court said it would not follow the plea agreement and (allegedly) denied opportunity to withdraw plea.	No breach: plea agreement expressly disclaimed court concurrence, so counsel had no duty to file a meritless motion.
Was Pryor entitled to withdraw his plea when court refused to agree to the plea recommendation?	State: Withdrawal required only when plea is conditioned on court concurrence.	Pryor: Rule 2.10(4) entitles defendant to withdraw plea when court declines to follow plea agreement.	No: Rule 2.10(4) applies only where the agreement is conditioned on court concurrence; written waiver here removed that right.
Was the ineffective-assistance claim preserved for direct appeal?	State: Record adequate to decide claim on direct appeal.	Pryor: (implicitly) sought reversal based on counsel’s failure without seeking PCR.	Court: Record adequate; resolved claim on direct appeal and found no prejudice/breach.
Must a court allow withdrawal of a plea if it rejects a plea agreement not conditioned on its concurrence?	State: Court need not permit withdrawal when agreement disclaims court concurrence.	Pryor: Court’s rejection required the opportunity to withdraw.	Held: No; defendant signed written acknowledgment that court was not bound, so withdrawal not required.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (standards for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Thorndike, 860 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 2015) (preservation of ineffective-assistance claims for postconviction relief and when direct resolution is appropriate)
State v. Wenzel, 306 N.W.2d 769 (Iowa 1981) (predecessor rule discussing court options when plea agreement is conditioned on court acceptance)
State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 2014) (agreement disclaiming court concurrence relieves court of obligation to allow plea withdrawal)
Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012) (affirmance is appropriate if either prong of ineffective-assistance test fails)