State of Iowa v. Justin Pattison
19-2152
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Justin Pattison pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (third or subsequent offense) as a habitual offender (class D felony) and later entered written guilty pleas to additional offenses; he appealed after sentencing.
- Pattison challenged the conviction on grounds the district court did not substantially comply with Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b) and (d), rendering his plea unknowing and lacking a factual basis.
- The State initially argued Pattison lacked good cause to appeal a guilty plea under Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3); the court found Pattison had good cause because the court failed to advise him about filing a motion in arrest of judgment per rule 2.8(2)(d).
- The district court failed to specify the statutorily required $125 law-enforcement-initiative surcharge when warning of penalties, omitted advising about immigration consequences, and did not conduct a sufficient colloquy regarding prior convictions for the habitual-offender determination.
- The court concluded the rule violations required vacating the possession plea, reversing the conviction, and permitting Pattison to plead anew; the case was reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pattison) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pattison had good cause to appeal his guilty plea despite statutory bar on appeals from guilty pleas | The legislative restriction largely forecloses appeals from guilty pleas, so omission about arrest-of-judgment procedure was inconsequential | Court failed to inform him of motion-in-arrest-of-judgment rights per rule 2.8(2)(d), so he has good cause to appeal | Court: Good cause exists because the district court did not adequately inform him about motion in arrest of judgment (Treptow applied) |
| Whether the court complied with rule 2.8(2)(b)(2) by informing Pattison of maximum punishment, including surcharges | The State implied omission was inconsequential given statutory appeal limits | Pattison argued the court did not state the specific $125 law-enforcement-initiative surcharge amount | Court: Violation of rule 2.8(2)(b)(2); failure to specify surcharge requires automatic reversal |
| Whether the court advised Pattison of immigration consequences under rule 2.8(2)(b)(3) | No defense offered on this point | Pattison argued the court omitted the required immigration-warning advice | Court: Concession by State that advice was omitted; violation noted |
| Whether the court conducted a sufficient colloquy for habitual-offender allegations (admissions to prior convictions) | Habitual-offender colloquy should follow guilty-plea protocols | Pattison argued colloquy was inadequate to establish voluntary, intelligent admission of priors | Court: Colloquy was insufficient; habitual-offender admission procedure not properly executed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2021) (new statutory right to appeal judgments entered on or after July 1, 2019 informs appellate jurisdiction)
- State v. Treptow, 954 N.W.2d 62 (Iowa 2021) (district court's failure to advise defendant about motion in arrest of judgment can provide good cause to appeal a guilty plea)
- State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (surcharges are punitive and must be disclosed in plea colloquies)
- State v. Weitzel, 905 N.W.2d 397 (Iowa 2017) (failure to inform defendant of surcharges in plea proceeding requires reversal)
- State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2017) (habitual-offender admissions should meet the voluntary-and-intelligent standard of guilty-plea colloquies)