STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Joseph D. CERETTI, Appellant.
No. 13-1573.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Oct. 23, 2015.
870 N.W.2d 88
HECHT, Justice.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jaki M. Livingston, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
The State of Iowa charged Joseph Ceretti with first-degree murder. In exchange for lesser charges, Ceretti pled guilty to voluntary manslaughter, attempted murder, and willful injury causing serious injury, and offered factual bases for them at a plea hearing. In this appeal, Ceretti contends the attempted murder and willful injury convictions entered under the plea agreement must merge with the voluntary manslaughter conviction because the crimes share a common mens rea element: specific intent to kill. We conclude under the circumstances presented here that the voluntary manslaughter and attempted murder convictions are mutually exclusive because one cannot be convicted of a completed homicide and an attempt to commit the same homicide without sufficient unit-of-prosecution evidence supporting separate charges. Because the parties’ expectations under the plea agreement cannot be achieved as a consequence of these mutually exclusive offenses, we conclude all of Ceretti‘s convictions must be vacated and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In the early morning hours of November 26, 2012, residents of a Des Moines neighborhood called 911 and reported an injured person lying in the street near the intersection of East 17th Street and Walnut Street. Police responded to the call and encountered Eric Naylor, who was covered in blood and had multiple stab wounds. Naylor received some emergency medical assistance, but his injuries were fatal and he passed away that evening. An autopsy revealed the stab wounds caused Naylor‘s death.
Police conducted an investigation, eventually arrested Ceretti, and charged him with first-degree murder. Before trial was to begin, the parties reached a plea agreement. No written memorialization of it appears in the record, but the parties announced the terms of the agreement
Ceretti entered an Alford plea1 to the attempted murder charge, but pled guilty to the other two charges.2 He agreed to join the State‘s sentencing recommendation: a twenty-five-year prison sentence for attempted murder and two ten-year sentences (one for voluntary manslaughter and one for willful injury), to be served consecutively with no eligibility for parole or work release for seventeen-and-one-half years consistent with
The district court questioned Ceretti extensively during the plea proceeding in determining whether he entered his pleas knowingly and voluntarily. The court enumerated the elements of each crime included in the plea agreement and asked questions of Ceretti for the purpose of providing a factual basis for his guilty pleas. Ceretti admitted he was in an altercation with Naylor on November 26, and during that altercation, he became so incensed that he used a knife to stab Naylor, intending to cause serious injury. Ceretti also admitted the multiple stab wounds he inflicted caused Naylor‘s death. The State did not contest Ceretti‘s conclusory agreement with his counsel that his anger during the altercation constituted “serious provocation” within the meaning of the voluntary manslaughter statute. See
Ceretti appealed, contending attempted murder and willful injury are both included offenses of voluntary manslaughter, and therefore, the three convictions should merge and his total sentence should not exceed ten years. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which rejected Ceretti‘s contentions, concluded attempted murder and willful injury resulting in serious injury are not included offenses of voluntary manslaughter because the latter offense can be committed without a specific intent to kill, and affirmed the district court court. Ceretti then sought further review, and we granted his application.
II. The Parties’ Positions.
A. Ceretti. Ceretti asserts it is impossible to commit voluntary manslaughter without also committing attempted homicide and willful injury. Accordingly, Ceretti contends
Ceretti contends in the alternative that even if we conclude the convictions for attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter do not merge because those offenses do not share a common specific intent element, we should hold the convictions merge because a defendant cannot be convicted of both a homicide and an attempt to commit the same homicide.
B. The State. The State asserts Ceretti‘s decision to appeal after he initially assented to the plea deal constitutes an improper attempt “to transform what was a favorable plea bargain in the district court to an even better deal on appeal.” State v. Walker, 610 N.W.2d 524, 526 (Iowa 2000). Accordingly, the State urges that Ceretti waived the right to appeal the sentences imposed by pleading guilty and agreeing to the State‘s sentencing recommendations. See State v. Rasmus, 249 Iowa 1084, 1086, 90 N.W.2d 429, 430 (1958) (“Certainly defendant could not complain of a ruling he asked the court to make.“); State v. Jensen, 245 Iowa 1363, 1371, 66 N.W.2d 480, 484 (1954) (“[A] party may not sit by and permit the court to commit inadvertent error without protest, and then complain for the first time ... in the appellate court.“).
However, the State also asserts we need not decide the waiver question because voluntary manslaughter does not contain a specific intent-to-kill element. Indeed, the State contends voluntary manslaughter contains no specific intent element whatsoever, making it possible to commit voluntary manslaughter without committing either attempted homicide or willful injury—both of which require specific mental states. See
III. Scope of Review.
Ceretti asserts the district court‘s sentence violated the merger statute. See
IV. Analysis.
A. The Elements Test. To determine whether
The legal elements test is often called the Blockburger test. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306, 309 (1932). To apply the Blockburger test, “we compare the elements of the two offenses to determine whether it is possible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense.” Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d at 344.
Ceretti asserts both attempted murder and willful injury merge with voluntary manslaughter. Attempted murder consists of two elements: (1) an act, (2) done with intent to cause another person‘s death. See
Voluntary manslaughter also consists of three elements: (1) an act, (2) done with “sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation,” from which (3) death results.
Nonetheless, Ceretti asserts although intent to kill is not a statutory element of voluntary manslaughter, it is an implicit element. See Hellwege, 294 N.W.2d at 690; State v. Conner, 292 N.W.2d 682, 685
B. Specific Intent to Kill.
A person commits voluntary manslaughter when that person causes the death of another person, under circumstances which would otherwise be murder, if the person causing the death acts solely as the result of sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation sufficient to excite such passion in a person and there is not an interval between the provocation and the killing in which a person of ordinary reason and temperament would regain control and suppress the impulse to kill.
“It is true we have referred to voluntary manslaughter as an intentional killing....” Id. at 1256, 11 N.W.2d at 411; see Conner, 292 N.W.2d at 684; State v. Millspaugh, 257 N.W.2d 513, 516 (Iowa 1977); State v. Gillick, 7 Iowa 287, 298 (1858) (“Intentional killing is not necessarily deliberate or premeditated, nor even malicious, for the crime may be only manslaughter....“). “But the expression, intentional killing, is not used in the sense that a specific intent to kill must be admitted or established.” State v. Gordon, 241 N.C. 356, 358, 85 S.E.2d 322, 323 (1955). Instead, the expression refers “to the fact that the [a]ct which resulted in death is intentionally committed.” State v. Ray, 299 N.C. 151, 158, 261 S.E.2d 789, 794 (1980); see also Gillick, 7 Iowa at 298 (stating a homicide could be manslaughter “though the act be intentional“); cf. State v. Shaver, 197 Iowa 1028, 1031-32, 198 N.W. 329, 331 (1924) (“The defendant testifies, and it is probably true, that he did not intend to kill.... But he nowhere denies that he did not intend to do just what he did do, that is, to strike [the] deceased several times with his fists with great force.“).
For the purposes of this case, the crucial phrase in
We acknowledge that voluntary manslaughter can be committed under circumstances which would otherwise be first-degree murder. But if, as Ceretti contends, intent to kill is an element of voluntary manslaughter, it would follow that such intent must be proved in support of every voluntary manslaughter conviction. Herein lies the flaw in Ceretti‘s merger analysis because one may commit voluntary manslaughter without intending to kill.
Voluntary manslaughter occurs “under circumstances which would otherwise be murder.”
Because a person could commit voluntary manslaughter under circumstances which would otherwise be second-degree murder, specific intent to kill is not an essential element of voluntary manslaughter. We have recognized for over seventy years that some—but not all—manslaughter crimes are committed with a specific intent to kill. See Boston, 233 Iowa at 1256, 11 N.W.2d at 411 (noting “manslaughter may be committed where there is an intent to take life, if” the defendant forms that intent impulsively (emphasis added)). We reaffirm here that a voluntary manslaughter conviction can be sustained without proof of specific intent to kill. “[W]e will not accept ... the most commonly negated mens rea for voluntary manslaughter as dictating the only possible one for the offense.” State v. Shabazz, 169 Vt. 448, 452, 739 A.2d 666, 669 (1999).
Additionally, we have previously noted—albeit impliedly—that voluntary manslaughter contains no specific intent element. State v. Couser, 567 N.W.2d 657, 661 (Iowa 1997). In Couser, we concluded a defendant‘s suicidal state of mind did not “measure up to the requirements of a diminished-capacity defense as to any element of voluntary manslaughter” because diminished-capacity defenses are available only against crimes for which the state must prove the defendant‘s specific intent as an element of the offense. Id.; see State v. Gramenz, 256 Iowa 134, 138-39, 126 N.W.2d 285, 288 (1964).
Furthermore, if voluntary manslaughter contains a specific intent element, a person could commit second-degree murder without also having the requisite intent for voluntary manslaughter. See State v. Montgomery, 39 So.3d 252, 256 (Fla. 2010) (concluding specific intent to kill is not an element of voluntary manslaughter be-
Our conclusion is consistent with decisions from courts in several other jurisdictions holding intent to kill is not an element of voluntary manslaughter. See, e.g., United States v. Paul, 37 F.3d 496, 499 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1994) (“While most voluntary manslaughter cases involve intent to kill, it is possible that a defendant who killed unintentionally but ... with extreme disregard for human life may have acted in the heat of passion with adequate provocation.“); People v. Bryant, 56 Cal.4th 959, 157 Cal.Rptr.3d 522, 301 P.3d 1136, 1141 (2013) (“A defendant commits voluntary manslaughter when a homicide that is committed either with intent to kill or with conscious disregard for life—and therefore would normally constitute murder—is nevertheless reduced or mitigated to manslaughter.” (Emphasis added.)); Montgomery, 39 So.3d at 256 (“[I]n some cases of manslaughter ... it may be inferred from the facts that the defendant intended to kill the victim—” (Emphasis added.)); State v. Porter, 142 Idaho 371, 128 P.3d 908, 912 (2005) (“To the extent that prior cases state that the intent to kill is a necessary element of voluntary manslaughter, those cases are disavowed.“); State v. Keffer, 860 P.2d 1118, 1138 (Wyo. 1993) (“Manslaughter ... is a general intent crime that does not require a deliberate intent to kill“). We decline Ceretti‘s invitation to supplement
C. Conviction for Attempt and a Completed Crime. Our conclusion that voluntary manslaughter does not require specific intent to kill does not end our analysis, however. Ceretti contends attempted murder should still merge with voluntary manslaughter because attempted crimes merge once completed. See
Although we have concluded the Blockburger test does not require merger under the circumstances presented here, we agree rule 2.22(3) prevents the State from punishing Ceretti for both attempting and completing the same homicide. In cases decided in the late 19th century and the early 20th century, we indicated that although voluntary manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, we did not consider it a degree of murder. See State v. Brown, 152 Iowa 427, 437, 132 N.W. 862, 866 (1911); State v. White, 45 Iowa 325, 327 (1876). That is still true in a textual sense—we do not call voluntary manslaughter “third-degree murder“—but for
“Iowa does not have a general attempt statute.... As a result, our attempt law is relatively undeveloped.” State v. Walker, 856 N.W.2d 179, 187 (Iowa 2014). Of course, “[i]t is also clear ... that a defendant may not be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime, because all the elements of the attempt are included in the completed offense and a dual conviction would amount to double jeopardy.” United States v. Rust, 650 F.2d 927, 928 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam); cf. State v. Waterbury, 307 N.W.2d 45, 51-52 (Iowa 1981) (merging a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder into a conviction for completing the same murder). However, this case features a unique wrinkle: Ceretti was not convicted of both attempted murder and murder; he was convicted of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter—something less than murder.
We conclude that wrinkle does not legitimize punishment for both an attempted murder of one victim and the homicide of that same victim from the same acts. We analogize here to the judicially-created one-homicide rule. See State v. Fix, 830 N.W.2d 744, 747-48 (Iowa Ct.App. 2013) (tracing the history of the one-homicide rule). The rule prohibits “a trial court from entering judgments and imposing sentences for multiple homicide offenses if the defendant was convicted for killing only one person.” Id. at 745; see also State v. Wissing, 528 N.W.2d 561, 567 (Iowa 1995).
The court of appeals has observed that “attempt to commit murder is not a homicide offense,” so convictions for both attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter do not violate the one-homicide rule. Termaat v. State, 867 N.W.2d 853, 856 (Iowa Ct.App. 2015); accord People v. Latham, 83 N.Y.2d 233, 609 N.Y.S.2d 141, 631 N.E.2d 83, 85 (1994) (“Attempted murder—which fails to cause the death of a person—is ... by definition a ‘nonhomicide’ offense.“). That is true, of course; attempted murder is not a homicide offense. But we conclude the principle underlying the one-homicide rule—that multiple punishments for homicide are not allowed when the defendant kills one person—applies equally when one of the offenses is attempted murder. Therefore, rule 2.22(3) applies in this case. A defendant may not be convicted of both an attempted homicide and a completed homicide when the convictions are based on the same acts directed against the same victim. Cf. People v. Sullivan, 379 Ill.Dec. 560, 6 N.E.3d 888, 902 (Ill.App.Ct. 2014) (vacating an aggravated battery conviction after the defendant was convicted of both aggravated battery and first-degree murder for harming one victim because the “defendant attacked his [victim] in a single, generalized instance“).
D. Disposition. We now turn to the appropriate disposition. Sometimes, when we conclude a conviction or sentence
However, some courts faced with analogous circumstances apply principles of contract law and vacate the entire plea agreement. For example, the Colorado Supreme Court has stated:
[W]hen a defendant enters into a plea agreement that includes as a material element a recommendation for an illegal sentence and the illegal sentence is in fact imposed on the defendant, the guilty plea is invalid and must be vacated because the basis on which the defendant entered the plea included the impermissible inducement of an illegal sentence.
Chae v. People, 780 P.2d 481, 486 (Colo. 1989) (en banc); see also Sweetwine v. State, 42 Md.App. 1, 398 A.2d 1262, 1265 (1979) (“[T]he whole package of reciprocal arrangements and obligations is conditional. The condition is the continuing health of the guilty plea. If it is voided, both the defendant and the state return to ‘square one.’ ” (Footnote omitted.)), aff‘d, 288 Md. 199, 421 A.2d 60, 69 (1980); State v. Briggs, 218 Wis.2d 61, 579 N.W.2d 783, 789 (Ct.App. 1998) (“We ... vacate the amended information and reinstate the original information in order to restore the parties to the positions they had before they made an agreement based on an inaccurate view of the law....“).
We conclude the circumstances of this case require us to follow the latter course because, as the State contends, Ceretti‘s appeal effectively “seeks to transform what was a favorable plea bargain in the district court to an even better deal on appeal.” Walker, 610 N.W.2d at 526; see also People v. Evans, 174 Ill.2d 320, 220 Ill.Dec. 332, 673 N.E.2d 244, 248 (1996) (refusing to let a defendant “negotiate with the State to obtain the best possible deal in modifying or dismissing the most serious charges and obtain a lighter sentence ... and then attempt to get that sentence reduced even further“). Ceretti “willingly embraced the ... sentence in the plea agreement in return for not risking life imprisonment following a guilty verdict at trial.” Fix, 830 N.W.2d at 750. If we were simply to sever Ceretti‘s sentence for attempted murder, defendants might be motivated to enter plea agreements quietly—even if they have double punishment concerns—and then appeal them to obtain a more lenient sentence. Cf. State v. Bittinger, 314 Md. 96, 549 A.2d 10, 11-12 (1988) (refusing to countenance a defendant‘s attempt to surprise the State by agreeing to a plea deal and then contending, immediately after the State dismissed the original charges, that he could not be guilty of the amended charge as a matter of law).
To avoid that problem, we do in this case what we have done in others involving an invalid plea agreement: We vacate all three convictions and the entire plea bargain and remand the case to the district court. See State v. Allen, 708 N.W.2d 361, 369 (Iowa 2006); State v. Hack, 545 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Iowa 1996). “On remand, the State may reinstate any charges dismissed in contemplation of a valid plea bargain, if it so desires, and file any additional charges supported by the available evidence.” Allen, 708 N.W.2d at 369; see
V. Conclusion.
A defendant may not be convicted of both an attempted homicide and a completed homicide when the convictions are based on the same acts directed against the same victim. Because Ceretti‘s plea agreement contravenes this principle, we vacate the agreement and the resulting convictions. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are taxed to the State.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT VACATED; CASE REMANDED.