State of Iowa v. Wilhelm Vonhofsteder
16-0730
| Iowa Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Wilhelm VonHofsteder pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of lascivious acts with a child (amended Count 1) and submitted written guilty pleas to three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (Counts 5–7); total agreed consecutive exposure was eleven years.
- The plea agreement and written pleas included factual-basis statements and waivers, including a waiver of the in-court colloquy for the aggravated misdemeanor written pleas.
- At the plea and later sentencing hearings, the district court accepted the felony plea on the record but the written pleas for the three aggravated misdemeanors were filed and not addressed extensively on the record; the sentencing judge referenced the written pleas and plea acceptance by another judge.
- On appeal VonHofsteder argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to arrest judgment, claiming the record lacks a district-court determination that the written pleas were voluntary, intelligent, and supported by a factual basis as required by Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b).
- The appellate court found the record does not show the trial court made the required on-the-record determinations regarding the written pleas (factual basis, voluntariness, or explicit acceptance) and therefore vacated the convictions and remanded for the court to hold the required Rule 2.8(2)(b) inquiry and then accept or reject each written plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to arrest judgment based on lack of Rule 2.8(2)(b) colloquy for written pleas | VonHofsteder: counsel should have moved because record lacks court determination that written pleas were voluntary/intelligent and had factual basis | State: written pleas and prior in-court felony plea, plus waiver language, suffice; court effectively accepted pleas | Vacated convictions for the three sexual-exploitation counts and remanded for the district court to determine voluntariness, factual basis, and acceptance of each written plea |
| Whether a court may rely solely on signed written pleas (with waivers) absent an explicit on-the-record acceptance | VonHofsteder: written pleas cannot substitute for court's in-court findings without clear record the court waived colloquy and accepted pleas | State: waiver language allows written plea to satisfy rule when consent given; prior judge accepted plea on paper | Court concluded record fails to show required determinations or acceptance; remand required so court can make those findings and then accept or reject pleas |
| Proper remedy when court failed to determine factual basis for plea | VonHofsteder: judgment should be vacated and remanded for colloquy or new plea proceedings | State: (implied) uphold plea given signatures and sentencing statements | Court followed precedent: vacate judgment and remand for determination of factual basis and voluntariness; if supported, court may accept pleas and resentence; if not, set aside pleas |
| Whether appellate review is barred by failure to move in arrest of judgment | VonHofsteder: ineffective-assistance exception permits challenge | State: general rule would preclude appeal absent motion | Court applied ineffective-assistance framework and proceeded because defendant claimed counsel failed to perform essential duty; remanded for remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676 (Iowa 2016) (written plea or waiver can foreclose appeal when rule complied with)
- State v. Rodriguez, 804 N.W.2d 844 (Iowa 2011) (ineffective-assistance exception to rule 2.24(3)(a))
- Everett v. State, 789 N.W.2d 151 (Iowa 2010) (ineffective-assistance claims reviewed de novo)
- State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (two-part test for ineffective assistance: duty and prejudice)
- State v. McPhillips, 580 N.W.2d 748 (Iowa 1998) (appellate court may affirm if either element of ineffective assistance is absent)
- State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 2004) (waiver language permits written plea to establish substantial compliance with Rule 2.8(2)(b))
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues must ordinarily be raised and decided by the district court before appellate review)
- State v. Randall, 258 N.W.2d 359 (Iowa 1977) (where court failed to determine factual basis, remedy is vacation of judgment and remand)