State of Iowa v. Melissa Sue Franck, 17-0239

Franck called police reporting her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend was intoxicated and a danger to a child; police found the report unfounded.
Charged with false reports to public safety (serious misdemeanor) and third-degree harassment (simple misdemeanor).
Franck signed a written waiver of rights and guilty plea that also waived a verbatim record of proceedings; plea hearing and sentencing hearing were not transcribed.
At sentencing the prosecutor recommended 90 days with all but 7 suspended and one year unsupervised probation; the court sentenced Franck to 365 days with 275 suspended (and 30 days concurrent on harassment).
Franck appealed alleging ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to convey a plea offer, failure to advise re: maximum exposure, failure to request reporting) and that the court abused its discretion by not reporting the sentencing and by failing to state reasons for a harsher-than-expected sentence.
The district court filed a responsive Rule 6.806 statement; the appellate court limited review to matters that could have been transcribed at sentencing and found the written judgment and the court’s responsive statement satisfied rule 2.23(3)(d).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance: failure to convey plea offer	State: record contains no factual basis showing counsel breached duty	Franck: counsel failed to convey a plea offer and failed to advise on sentencing exposure	No prejudice shown; claim fails because Franck did not show she would have gone to trial (she said she would have accepted the plea)
Ineffective assistance: failure to inform about court’s sentencing authority	State: written plea shows defendant was informed court could impose maximum	Franck: counsel failed to fully inform her that court could impose maximum sentence	No prejudice; written plea undermines claim and record lacks support
Failure to report sentencing hearing	State: defendant waived verbatim record in writing; court asked parties about reporting	Franck: court should have sua sponte halted and reported because sentence was more severe	Waiver effective; court not required to sua sponte order reporting absent other grounds
Sentencing reasons / abuse of discretion	State: court provided reasons in written judgment and court file; responsive statement elaborated	Franck: court failed to state reasons for imposing a harsher sentence than recommended	No abuse of discretion; reasons in judgment and responsive statement satisfy rule 2.23(3)(d) and sentence within discretion

State v. Clay, 824 N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 2012) (standard for reviewing ineffective-assistance claims)
State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 2003) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638 (Iowa 2009) (prejudice standard for guilty-plea context)
State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (adequacy of sentencing court’s stated reasons)
State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 1996) (sentencing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (rule requiring court to state reasons on record)
State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 2014) (written order must include reasons when defendant waives reporting)