State of Iowa v. Tyson James Ruth, 17-0270

Tyson James Ruth was charged in an eight-count information including ongoing criminal conduct, two third-degree burglaries, two second-degree thefts, and three possession counts.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ruth pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree theft; the State dismissed the remaining seven counts.
The district court accepted the plea, sentenced Ruth to an indeterminate term not to exceed five years, and ordered him to pay court costs; the record is silent whether the plea addressed costs for dismissed counts.
Ruth appealed, arguing the assessment of court costs for dismissed counts rendered his sentence illegal.
The appellate court reviewed the claim as a legal-error issue and considered whether Ruth proved he was actually assessed costs attributable solely to dismissed counts.
Ruth also filed a pro se ineffective-assistance claim; the court preserved those claims for postconviction relief because the record was insufficient to resolve them on direct appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Legality of court costs assessed after plea dismissing multiple counts	State: costs may be assessed as part of sentence unless shown otherwise	Ruth: court costs attributable to dismissed counts make the sentence illegal absent plea agreement allowing them	Court: Under controlling precedent, assessing costs for dismissed counts is illegal unless plea permits; but defendant must prove he was actually assessed costs tied to dismissed counts — Ruth failed to do so; sentence affirmed
Standard for proving illegal sentence based on dismissed-count costs	State: defendant bears burden to show costs are attributable to dismissed counts	Ruth: the dismissal of counts automatically taints assessed costs	Court: Dismissal alone is not enough; defendant must show specific costs were attributable solely to dismissed counts; Ruth did not meet this burden
Availability of direct-appeal review for ineffective-assistance claims	State: generally reserved for postconviction proceedings	Ruth: sought resolution on direct appeal	Court: Direct appeal record insufficient; preserve claims for postconviction relief
Application of Petrie controlling rule versus statutory interpretation	State: follows Petrie precedent	Ruth: argued against applicability due to statutory language (implicit)	Court: Acknowledged doubts about Petrie but treated it as controlling precedent

State v. Petrie, 478 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1991) (holds court costs for dismissed counts cannot be assessed absent plea agreement)
State v. Sisk, 577 N.W.2d 414 (Iowa 1998) (standard of review for legal error in sentencing)
State v. Johnson, 887 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (dismissing counts does not automatically mean assessed costs are attributable to those counts)
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 2006) (ineffective-assistance claims generally preserved for postconviction relief)