State of Iowa v. Ryan David Trostel, 16-1305

Trostel was charged with operating while intoxicated and initially sought appointed counsel but was ineligible; he later obtained continuances to secure representation.
On March 9 Trostel pled guilty pro se after signing a written waiver; sentencing was set for April 6 and then continued multiple times.
A Wisconsin attorney indicated in April he would seek pro hac vice admission and planned to investigate the plea; he did not apply until June 24 and was admitted June 24 pro hac vice.
Sentencing was scheduled for June 29; Trostel’s Iowa counsel withdrew the day before, the Wisconsin attorney filed a continuance motion, and the court denied the continuance on June 29.
Trostel filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea the same day, claiming he pled guilty due to lack of funds to pursue defenses; the court denied withdrawal and sentenced him to two days in jail and a fine.
Trostel appealed, arguing the court erred in denying (1) his motion to continue (asserting ineffective assistance of counsel / abuse of discretion) and (2) his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of continuance violated right to effective assistance of counsel	State: Trostel failed to preserve the constitutional claim; trial court acted within discretion	Trostel: denial deprived him of effective assistance because new counsel had only days to prepare	Not preserved; appellate court declines to address constitutional claim
Whether denial of continuance was an abuse of discretion	State: court acted within Rule 2.9(2) standards; prior delays and circumstances justified denial	Trostel: five days after pro hac vice admission was insufficient time to prepare	No abuse of discretion; multiple prior continuances and facts showed adequate time
Whether court erred in denying motion to withdraw guilty plea	State: plea was valid and Trostel did not challenge its adequacy on proper motion in arrest of judgment	Trostel: should be allowed to withdraw plea under rule 2.8(2)(a) due to inability to pursue defenses	No abuse of discretion; plea was knowing and voluntary and withdrawal untimely
Whether plea adequacy was preserved for appeal	State: Trostel failed to file motion in arrest of judgment, so adequacy cannot be raised on appeal	Trostel: did not challenge plea adequacy on appeal	Court affirmed that adequacy challenge was not preserved and proceeded under withdrawal standards

Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (preservation rule requires issues be both raised and decided by the district court)
Clark v. State, 814 N.W.2d 551 (Iowa 2012) (constitutional limits on continuance denials where right to counsel implicated)
LaGrange v. State, 541 N.W.2d 562 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (trial courts have broad discretion on continuances)
Ramirez v. State, 400 N.W.2d 586 (Iowa 1987) (standards for permitting withdrawal of guilty pleas)
Mattly v. State, 513 N.W.2d 739 (Iowa 1994) (abuse-of-discretion review for denial of plea-withdrawal motion)
Orcutt v. State, 173 N.W.2d 66 (Iowa 1969) (factors for adequate time to prepare for trial or sentencing)
Williams v. State, 207 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1973) (constitutional bounds on continuance discretion)
Weckman v. State, 180 N.W.2d 434 (Iowa 1970) (defendant may withdraw plea if entered without full knowledge or under persuasion)