State of Iowa v. Tracy Adam Thompson, 15-1718

Tracy Thompson pled guilty to aggravated-misdemeanor domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury and signed a written plea agreeing to 2 years' imprisonment with all but 220 days suspended, credit for time served, a suspended $625 fine, and two years' probation.
The written plea did not mention the mandatory surcharge that would be added to any fine.
At sentencing the court accepted the plea, imposed the $625 fine and a 35% surcharge ($218.75) but suspended both fines/surcharges consistent with the plea.
Thompson claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) failing to advise him of the surcharge and (2) failing to move to withdraw his plea when the court imposed the surcharge; he also argued his sentence was illegal because the court both imposed probation and required 220 days’ confinement.
The court analyzed ineffective-assistance under Iowa standards and the prejudice requirement, and reviewed the sentence for legality under Iowa sentencing statutes.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not advising Thompson of the mandatory surcharge	State: Counsel satisfied duties; no prejudice because surcharge was suspended under the plea	Thompson: Counsel should have told him about surcharge; would have affected his plea decision	Court: No ineffective assistance — no prejudice because surcharge was suspended by the plea agreement
Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to withdraw plea when court imposed (and suspended) surcharge not in writing	State: No material change — obligations remained those in plea; suspension prevented future payment	Thompson: Court deviated from plea terms by imposing surcharge; counsel should have sought withdrawal	Court: Not ineffective — defendant’s obligations did not increase and surcharge was suspended
Whether the sentence imposing both probation and 220 days’ confinement is legal	State: (argued mootness but record shows sentence not discharged)	Thompson: Sentence illegal because statute doesn’t authorize suspending all but 220 days while granting probation	Court: Sentence illegal — imposing confinement plus probation in that fashion is not authorized; remanded for resentencing

State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (defendant should be informed of mandatory minimum and maximum fines, including surcharges)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (prejudice standard for plea-vacatur claims — reasonable probability defendant would have gone to trial)
State v. Rodriguez, 804 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2011) (standards for proving ineffective assistance of counsel)
Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357 (Iowa 2001) (illegal-sentence review — correction of errors at law)
State v. Harris, 251 N.W.2d 483 (Iowa 1977) (granting probation and imposing confinement can be contradictory)
State v. Woody, 613 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 2000) (remand for resentencing when plea is valid but sentence is illegal)