State of Iowa v. Kevin Brown, 16-0074

Kevin Brown pled guilty to operating while intoxicated (first offense, a serious misdemeanor) in Henry County, Iowa.
Brown signed a written plea acknowledging the charge, possible sentence range, and expressly waiving his right to an in-court colloquy, jury trial, and confrontation/compulsory process.
He later appealed, claiming trial counsel was ineffective for allowing the plea without the district court making express oral findings that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
The district court accepted the written plea; the court’s acceptance was reviewed under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) and the substantial-compliance standard.
The appellate court examined whether counsel had an essential duty to object to the plea acceptance and whether any failure caused prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not insisting on an in-court colloquy	State: Counsel had no duty because the court substantially complied with rule 2.8(2)(b) given the written waiver	Brown: Counsel should have ensured the court made express oral findings that the plea was knowing and voluntary	Counsel not ineffective; no breach of essential duty because written plea and substantial compliance made objection meritless
Whether the written plea sufficed to establish voluntariness	State: A signed written plea with waiver is prima facie evidence of a knowing, voluntary waiver	Brown: An in-court colloquy was required to ensure the plea was knowing and voluntary	Written plea met informational requirements; in-court colloquy not necessary here
Standard of review for ineffective-assistance claim	State: Review de novo; defense must show both deficiency and prejudice	Brown: Same standard applied in arguing counsel deficient	Court reviewed de novo and found Brown failed to prove deficiency (and thus claim failed)
Whether substantial compliance with rule 2.8(2) is sufficient	State: Substantial compliance satisfies the court’s duty under rule 2.8(2)	Brown: Implied challenge that strict compliance was required to validate plea	Court applied substantial-compliance standard and found compliance here

State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard and review)
State v. Utter, 803 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 2011) (counsel not required to pursue meritless issues)
State v. Majeres, 722 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2006) (written guilty plea with waiver is prima facie evidence of voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver)
State v. Loye, 670 N.W.2d 141 (Iowa 2003) (substantial compliance standard for Rule 2.8 duties)
Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance claim fails if either deficiency or prejudice element lacking)
Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77 (2004) (written plea can substitute for oral colloquy when defendant is fully informed)