*1 submitted. We that were negligence affirm.
therefore
AFFIRMED. Iowa, Appellee,
STATE HAMRICK, Appellant. A.
Chad
No. 97-2179.
Supreme of Iowa. Court 3, 1999.
June *2 part agreement
As of this the Defendant must enter the Army U.S. or other full- military time service and serve a term of active of duty years. at least four For reasons, possible, whatever whether control, within his control or outside his if Defendant is to enter the unable U.S. Parrish, of Sheelеy Matthew S. Kruide- military five within months the State’s nier, Moss, Dunn Montgomery, & Des dismissal of III Count of the Trial Infor- Moines, appellant. for mation, same shall be a breach of his obligations agreement, under this and General, Miller, Attorney Thomas J. grounds proceed shall bе for the State to Tabor, General, Mary Attorney Assistant to refile the contained Count Edmondson, County and Barbara Attor- III and to file Defendant’s guilty written ney, appellee. for
plea.... Count III the charge impris- onment. SNELL, Justice. No branch of the armеd services was discretionary We have taken re Hamrick, willing though, to take because pursuant
view of to this case Iowa Code participation of his in the batterers’ edu- (1997). 814.6(2)(e) Defendant, section program. Apparently, cation thе services Hamrick, A. challenges Chad the State’s accept any would not individual with a alleged breach of a and its abuse, of domestic history they which in- filing charges. of additional To the extent terpreted the batterers’ education clаsses the defendant’s claims raise constitutional signifying. as issues, our review is de novo. State v. Finnel, 1994). Based on Hamrick’s failure mil- to enter itary service consequential and breach of
I. Background Proceedings Facts and agreement, the State filеd a sec- him 15, 1995, charging ond information with false September On the Washington imprisonment: subsequently It County Attorney charges against filed charge pursuant to Iowa Rule Crim- imprisonment, defendant false harass- ment, inal Procedure and assault. On October .pending the State dismissed all Then, 1, 1997, on August the State filed charges against pursuant Hamrick against a third information Hamrick plea agreement into parties which the had charging third-degree felony him with kid- plea agreement, among entered. That naping in violation of Iowa Code sections (1) things, required other Hamrick to 710,1 heightened ánd 710.4. The new plead guilty simple misdemeanor charge was based on same facts as (2) assault; charges and of harassment previous imprisonment charges. false jail twenty days pay serve and a $100 (3) fine; participate in a The kid- sixteen-week bat- defendant moved to dismiss the (4) class; naping charge arguing terers’ education enter the that it violated the Army prohibition jeopardy for a minimum against United States of four doublе be- years. agreement required previous The further cause the dismissals of plead acquittals im- guilty Hamrick to to the false constituted however, prisonment charge; He also lesser-included offense. agreed long to defer its as as that the violat- maintained complied rights Hamrick ed because the State process armed service his due condition, ie., requirement. imposed impossible entry That an agreement stated: court, upon own motion or the has military by an individual who into the program. prosecuting attorney, education attended the batterers’ justice, may order in the furtherance to dismiss denied the motion The court criminal pending the dismissal of that, jeopar- finding purposes of double *3 being the thereforе prosecution, reasons imprisonment were dy, kidnaping and false in the and entered of rec- stated order Following separate and distinct crimes. ord, prosecution shall be and no such applica- an ruling, the defendant filed this in other discontinued or abandoned discretionary review which we tion for is a bar to manner. Such a dismissal granted. same prosecution another the offense Hamrick the kid- appeal, In his asserts misdemeanor; simple if it is a or serious prosecution jeopar- offends double naping charged a if the offense but it is not bar Iowa under the United States and Con- dy felony or an misde- aggravated be a and Iowa Code sections 816.1 stitutions meanor. kid- and 816.2. He further contends the Subsequently, charge alleging a new third- a naping charge is vindictive and violation degree was filed. process rights his due both the of and Iowa United States Constitutions. Analysis III. ruled the previously We have on Chronology II. of under rule In effect dismissal plea agreement issue here (Iоwa Fisher, 798, v. 351 N.W.2d 801 State the by entered into the defendant and 1984), precluded we held the was not February on county attorney for the State previously charges refiling from 6, State, on apparently relying 1996. The in the fur when the dismissal had been that efficacy thе of the not avoid bar justice therance of and the army, defendant would enter the moved to speedy the trial rule. The “furtherance of 24, 1996, in charges dismiss all on October “ justice” ‘facilitating includes the State justice. interest of The court entеred the evidence, witnesses, gathering procuring in all day dismissing order the
its
same
” Fisher,
plea bargaining.’
or
351 N.W.2d
county attorney
the
learned
counts. When
Johnson,
(quoting
at 801
217
plea agreement,
the failure of the
a new
(Iowa 1974)).1
609, 612-13
N.W.2d
charge
imprisonment
wаs filed on
being
by
1997.
an
June
On
advised
are
in
Although we
not concerned
attorney general that Iowa Rule
assistant
rule,
speedy
trial
the instant case
27(1) might
Criminal Procedure
bar the
27(1)
analysis
pro
in
of rule
the
Fisher
of the false
appropriate
framework for ad
vides
charges,
moved to dis- dressing the issues raised and now consid
charge. Noting
miss the
the dismissal as
ered. Each of the two dismissals of the
occurring under
Iowa Rule
Criminal
done,
imprisonment charge was
on
27(1),
Procedure
the court dismissed
“in
county attorney,
of the
justice.”
“in the furtherance of
justice.”
furtherance of
The State dis
first
on its belief that
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
missed the
provides:
the terms of the
would be
language
impacted unfavorably upon
1.
This
from Fisher has been clаrified
defendant's
Gansz,
speedy
rights,
resulting delay
pros-
and narrowed
State v.
403 N.W.2d
trial
(Iowa 1987).
recognized
speedy
780
There we
ecution warrants a dismissal on
trial
Gansz,
780;
merely allege
grounds.
N.W.2d at
see also
that the State could not
that a
Florie,
justicе”
dismissal was in the "furtherance of
State v.
1987) ("State should not be accorded an un-
and be assured that it could later refile its
escape
statutory
charges.
If it can be demonstrated that a
fettered avenue of
from
dismissal,
prior
speedy
рredicament engendered by
regardless
pur-
its stated
trial
case.”).
mishandling
pose,
adequate
of a
was without
cause and that
own
criminal
The reason for the second dis-
tactics
the State. The
fulfilled.
district court
plea agree-
missal wаs the failure
the evidence
reviewed
submitted
ment,
plain
of which was
language
parties and found that
the State had
a breach
unambiguous.
provides
It
that
... charge
good
filed the
faith. This
if
not enter the
occurs
the defendant does
procedure
protect
will
a defendant when
five
of the dismissal of
army within
months
charges merely
state files inflated
imprisonment charge,
the false
“for what-
potential
resulting
avoid the
bar
from a
possible
ever
reasons” and “whether with-
prior dismissal.
or outsidе his control.” This
his control
Henderson,
dant
the
finding
court’s factual
that the charge was
plea agree-
We conclude that when the
in good
filed
faith.
Id. Good faith exists
failed,
was
ment
the State
free
rule
county attorney
when the
has made a rea
27(1)
charge
third-degree
file
new
to
the
inquiry
sonable
into
the facts and the
both
felony charge
because this
was
filing
law before
the trial information.
Id.
as
previously
not the “same offense”
the
imprisonment charge.
dismissed
See
case,
county
In the instant
the
attorney
27(1)
fact,
Iowa
In
rule
R.Crim.P.
stated that in reviewing the facts and cir-
posed
would not have
an obstacle to the
case,
charge
cumstances of the
the
of kid-
attempt
original
the
State’s
to reinstate
naping
rather than false
was
charge since the
was
misdemeanor
State
appropriate charge.
the
Our rеview shows
posi-
original
entitled to be returned to its
that
is no
casting
there
evidence
doubt
defendant’s,
upon
per-
tion
the
failure to
that this is a
faith
good
assessment
the
plea agreement.
the
See State v.
form
against
case
the defеndant.
(Iowa 1998) (“If
337,
Foy, 574 N.W.2d
339
An argument similar to the de
uphold his or her end
a defendant fails to
fendant’s claim of vindictive
agreement,
of the
the State has no obli-
in
was made
There we held the
gation
provide
to
the defendant the antici-
Sefcheck.
attorney
not
the
county
should
use
consid
bargain.”).
pated benefits of the
powers
prosecutor
punish
of a
to
a
erable
IV.
of Abuse
the State
Claims
asserting any procedural
defendant
right,
nor
the
use
should
being
further
Defendant makes
claims
рowers
purposes.
those
for vindictive
subjected
jeopardy and vindic-
to double
Sef
check,
1167,
opinion.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED. LARSON, J., justices except
All concur specially, joined by
who concurs and is
NEUMAN, J.