State of Iowa v. Kenneth Edward Petty, 925 N.W.2d 190

Kenneth Petty was charged in two separate sexual-offense cases involving minors: sexual exploitation of a minor (M.S.) and lascivious acts with a child (Z.C.).
On the first day of the first scheduled trial, Petty accepted an Alford plea deal: concurrent ten-year indeterminate terms on two class C felonies, sex-offender registration and lifetime parole consequences.
The day after pleas, defense counsel moved to withdraw citing a communication breakdown; Petty later filed a motion in arrest of judgment alleging inadequate advice, lack of understanding, and involuntariness of pleas.
At the March hearing the court overruled the motion in arrest, did not personally question Petty about the alleged breakdown, denied relief, and sentenced Petty consistent with the plea, ordering immediate payment of costs, fees, and restitution.
On appeal, Petty challenged (1) validity of guilty pleas under rule 2.8(2)(b), (2) denial of effective assistance/right to counsel due to insufficient inquiry into counsel breakdown, (3) imposition of a section 911.2B surcharge as ex post facto, and (4) ordering restitution/costs without determining reasonable ability to pay.

Issue	Petty's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Validity of guilty pleas (Rule 2.8(2)(b))	Court failed to advise him of penal consequences (minimum/maximum fines, surcharge, mandatory lifetime special sentence)	Error not preserved; claim raised differently below; if preserved, should be considered via ineffective-assistance standard	Error not preserved on direct appeal; insufficient record for ineffective-assistance review — preserved for postconviction relief
Right to counsel / inquiry into breakdown	Court failed to adequately inquire into alleged attorney–client communication breakdown, denying right to counsel	Court’s inquiry was sufficient	Record insufficient to decide; preserved for postconviction relief because court did not personally address defendant about breakdown
Imposition of § 911.2B surcharge	Surcharge applied retroactively and increased punishment (ex post facto violation)	—	Vacated surcharge portion of sentence and remanded for corrected sentence (surcharge violated Ex Post Facto Clauses)
Restitution and immediate payment of costs/fees	Court ordered restitution/costs "due immediately" without determining reasonable ability to pay	—	Vacated restitution/cost portion of sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with State v. Albright (reasonable-ability-to-pay analysis required)

State v. Lopez, 907 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2018) (surcharge is punitive; retroactive imposition may violate Ex Post Facto Clauses)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (ineffective-assistance standard for guilty-plea challenges requiring proof defendant would have insisted on trial)
State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2004) (procedures and duty of inquiry when defendant requests substitute counsel)
State v. Wells, 738 N.W.2d 214 (Iowa 2007) (complete breakdown in communication can justify new counsel; court must inquire)
State v. Smith, 753 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa 2008) (standard of review for motions in arrest of judgment)
State v. Hoeck, 843 N.W.2d 67 (Iowa 2014) (review standard for illegal-sentence claims)