State of Iowa v. Leah Morgan Mallory, 17-0590

Leah Mallory was charged with three counts of assault on persons engaged in certain occupations; one aggravated misdemeanor and two serious misdemeanors.
She pleaded guilty to the aggravated-misdemeanor count under a plea agreement: the State dismissed the other counts and recommended 365 days with all but 21 days suspended.
Mallory waived the right to file a motion in arrest of judgment, waived an in-court plea colloquy, and waived making a statement in mitigation.
The district court accepted the plea, found it voluntary and supported by a factual basis, and imposed the agreed sentence.
On appeal Mallory argued her plea was not voluntary/knowing because she was not informed of certain penalties and that trial counsel was ineffective for permitting the plea; she also challenged the sufficiency of the court’s sentencing reasons and noted a clerical statutory error in the written judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plea was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent	State: written plea and colloquy satisfied Rule 2.8 and plea was valid	Mallory: plea invalid because she was not informed of minimum/maximum penalties and suspension possibilities for fines/surcharges	Court: plea valid; written plea informed of mandatory min/max; no requirement to tell defendant of discretionary suspension of fines
Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to move in arrest of judgment	State: counsel did not breach an essential duty given Rule 2.8 compliance	Mallory: counsel breached an essential duty by allowing a defective plea	Court: ineffective-assistance claim fails because counsel did not breach essential duty on these grounds
Whether sentence lacked sufficient reasons on the record	State: court provided sufficient, if brief, reasons for sentence (rehabilitation, community protection, plea agreement)	Mallory: court failed to state adequate reasons for selecting sentence	Court: reasons were sufficient; sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion
Whether written judgment incorrectly cited the statute	State: error was clerical and correctable	Mallory: misidentification of statute was substantive error	Court: error was clerical; remanded for nunc pro tunc correction

State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (discusses effect of failing to move in arrest of judgment and ineffective-assistance pathway)
State v. Philo, 697 N.W.2d 481 (counsel breaches essential duty if plea not intelligently and voluntarily made)
State v. Fischer, 877 N.W.2d 676 (substantial compliance required with plea-procedure rules)
State v. Klein, 574 N.W.2d 347 (court may suspend fines; suspension discretionary)
State v. Gray, 514 N.W.2d 78 (same—suspension of fines discretionary)
State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (appellate review of sentencing discretion)
State v. Johnson, 476 N.W.2d 330 (factors district court must consider when sentencing)
State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679 (district court must state reasons for sentence; cursory explanation can suffice)
State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412 (failure to provide any reasons may warrant vacating sentence)
State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525 (distinguishing clerical errors and remedy by nunc pro tunc correction)