State of Iowa v. Judith Renae Utter, 2011 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 71

Utter was charged with knowingly or intentionally purchasing and supplying alcohol to individuals under 21 at an underage party (April 2009).
A citation and complaint were filed April 10, 2009; information filed June 12; arraignment June 26; trial set for July and then August 24.
Utter pled guilty August 14 under a negotiated deal: $500 fine, installments, and waiver of certain motions; court imposed fine, surcharge, and restitution.
The 45-day speedy-indictment window began April 11 and ended May 25; the State indicted on June 12, eighteen days late.
The State did not indict within the deadline, Utter did not waive the speedy-indictment right, and trial counsel allegedly failed to move to dismiss.
Supreme Court vacated Utter’s plea on direct review and remanded with instructions to dismiss the information under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(a).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s failure to move to dismiss due to speedy-indictment violation was essential and prejudicial.	Utter	Utter's counsel failed to press a meritorious motion; the delay prejudiced Utter.	Yes; failure to file a motion to dismiss was essential and prejudicial.
Whether a speedy-indictment violation requires absolute dismissal with prejudice.	Utter	The State could pursue related offenses or obviate the issue via waiver.	Yes; absolute dismissal with prejudice required; reindictment barred.
Whether Utter’s guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent given the indictment issue.	Utter	Plea was knowingly made with counsel’s advice.	No; plea not voluntary or intelligent due to counsel’s breach.

Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) (plea must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent)
Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (ineffective-assistance claims can survive plea analysis)
Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (precludes raising claims that occurred prior to the plea)