State of Iowa v. Thierno Yaya Diallo, 16-0279

Background

Defendant Thierno Yaya Diallo pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury (serious misdemeanor) and received 90 days jail (80 suspended), one year probation, $315 fine, costs, restitution, and $60 attorney fee.
Diallo did not file a motion in arrest of judgment in district court, but the State conceded appellate review was allowed because the written plea advisory failed to substantially comply with Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(d).
Diallo argued his plea was not knowing and voluntary because (1) the plea form did not adequately advise him of immigration consequences, and (2) it failed to inform him of mandatory surcharges that increase fines; he also alleged ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to advise on immigration consequences.
The written plea form included a generic handwritten note about immigration consequences (not initialed) but also contained a signed printed statement informing noncitizens they may suffer adverse immigration consequences and may contact an immigration attorney/consulate.
The plea form stated a base fine range of $315 to $1875 but did not disclose mandatory chapter 911 surcharges (35% of the fine), which would increase the minimum actual fine to $425.25 and the maximum to $2531.25.
The court found the immigration advisory substantially complied with rule 2.8(2)(b)(3) but concluded failure to disclose mandatory surcharges misstated the true minimum and maximum fines, rendering the plea unknowing and involuntary; conviction vacated and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant may challenge plea on appeal despite not filing motion in arrest of judgment	State conceded appeal allowed because written advisory did not substantially comply with rule 2.8(2)(d)	Diallo sought to challenge plea without motion in arrest of judgment	Appeal permitted due to deficient written advisory (per Fisher/Worley)
Whether plea form adequately advised of immigration consequences under rule 2.8(2)(b)(3)	State: signed printed advisory informed Diallo and thus substantially complied	Diallo: handwritten, uninitialed note was inadequate	Court held printed signed advisory substantially complied; no error on immigration advisory
Whether omission of mandatory surcharges from plea advisory renders plea unknowing/ involuntary under rule 2.8(2)(b)(2)	State: omission is immaterial; base fine disclosure was adequate and surcharges are minor	Diallo: omission misstated mandatory minimum and maximum fines because 35% surcharge applies	Court held omission misstated true minimum/maximum fines; plea not knowing and voluntary; conviction vacated and remanded
Whether counsel ineffective for failing to advise on immigration consequences	State did not prevail on substantive claim; raised but not decided due to vacatur	Diallo argued counsel failed to advise about immigration consequences	Court did not reach ineffectiveness claim because conviction vacated on surcharge ground

Key Cases Cited

State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2004) (defendant must file motion in arrest of judgment to preserve plea challenge absent deficient plea advisement)
State v. Worley, 297 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1980) (court must advise defendant that failure to move in arrest of judgment precludes later challenge)
State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (failure to disclose mandatory license suspension and discussion whether omission of surcharges can invalidate plea)
State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574 (Iowa 2002) (substantial compliance standard for plea advisories)
State v. Kress, 636 N.W.2d 12 (Iowa 2001) (misstatement about sentencing range can render plea uninformed)
State v. White, 587 N.W.2d 240 (Iowa 1998) (failure to inform of possibility of consecutive sentences leaves defendant uninformed about true maximum)
Stovall v. State, 340 N.W.2d 265 (Iowa 1983) (material misstatements that induce plea can invalidate plea)
State v. West, 326 N.W.2d 316 (Iowa 1982) (misstatements creating false hope about sentencing affect voluntariness)
State v. Brady, 442 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1989) (restitution is not punishment and need not be advised under rule 2.8)