State v. Hathaway

Iowa, Appellee, STATE of HATHAWAY, Appellant.

Donald Franklin 59964.

No. of Iowa.

Supreme Court 21,

Sept. Hobart, Meardon, Sueppel,

Thomas D. for Hayes, City, appellant. Downer Iowa & Turnеr, Gen., Shirley G. Atty. Richard C. Steele, Gen., Des Moines Atty. Asst. appellee. for County Atty., Jack W. Dooley, HARRIS, Justice. following this appeal breaking entering jury conviction 708.8, In his

in violation of The Code. he concedes there argument brief trial error in actual no connection with the assignment His sole jury or instructions. in which the challenges pretrial trial court held the State or inform to indict cause for its failure he was after against him within affirm charge. held to answer on the the trial court. (defendant) Hathaway

Donald Franklin early arrested for the offense 8, morning bowling 1975at a May hours of 19, 1975 de- alley May in Iowa City. On hearing appeared ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍preliminary fendant and was held to answer. present did not the case to grand proceed jury but rather elected infor filing of a 769.2,

mation as The Code. authorized Wednesday, exactly On hearing the days following рreliminary and file the sought present 736 769.8,

attorney’s nings applicable information. is to the Section instant case. De- Code, requires such an information to be points delay fendant out it involved a trial approved by a judge district or associate under 795.2 rather than an indictment § district before it can be filed. On under 795.1. delay Moreover defendant § 18, 1975, June all judges was learned of points language in Jennings which he judicial (which 6th includes supports position: believes attending Johnson a County) were mean, however, “This particular- does not Moines, Iowa, conference in Des from June ly existing judicial districting, under chron- 18 through June 1975. Such confer- dockets, judge, ic crowded sickness of a trial 684.20, ences are by authorized Code. § judges or the of due to vaca- We can judicially regularly note are good tion schedules will alone sufficе as called twice all annually. by Attendance cause for delay.” (Emphasis trial supplied.) expected. district court is 195 N.W.2d at 356. Because no district court were in Goff, 244 1976) N.W.2d 579 County, Johnson nor in the 6th dis- delay was another trial case under 795.2. § trict, the county attorney’s information was In Goff we right hеld the defendant’s to a left in the office of clerk of court after speedy trial could not be denied because one being sworn to before deputy. a On Mon- ill, judge was on another vacation and leav- day, 23, 1975, the first a day ing only two judges eight to serve court- county, аvailable in the the information weekly. Hines, houses In presented Robert 225 Judge Osmundson approved. It N.W.2d 156 day was filed the same we held accused court, with the clerk days 35 after de- been right speedy denied his to a trial fendant had been held to answer. under acknowledged 795.2. We § ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍“[n]оn- chronic ‘court congestion,’ arising out Defendant immediately filed a motion to unique, resulting non-recurring events 795.1, Code, dismiss on the basis of § in only may ‘good a short delay constitute provides: person “When a is held to cause’ satisfying exception. 795.2 § offense, answer for public a if an indict- (Authorities). But nowhere we find [did] ment be against not found him within thir- persuasive authority indicating a court con- ty days, the court must prosecu- order the gestion ‘good cause’ arise from the dismissed, tion to be cause to * * * ignore State’s deliberate election to all contrаry be shown. plain several and well-known statutory pro- Defendant’s by motion was resisted cedures providing jury try a de- State and was presented Judge Osmund- fendant.” 225 N.W.2d at 158. son who overruled it. The case was there- after Judge tried before In ap- Schaeffer. argues Defendant these cаses indicate pealing his conviction and sentence defend- “good here, cause” was not established even ant’s sole challenge Judge is addressed to as the term is defined under 795.2. He § Osmundson’s on the motion to dis- argues then good cause under 795.1 § miss. should be even harder to show because the imposed by limitation that section is Although I. we do not subscribe to the more easily prosecutor. controlled rationale Judge Osmundson in his ruling points many beyond factors we believe right he reached the conclusion. control are involved in the We think the Stаte established bringing matter of case to trial within the for the delay meaning within the required by 795.2. § statute. agree In Jennings, up by two limitations set (Iowa 1972) we question many respects discussed the sections are in similar good cause which might many excuse a trial and in respects differing and that beyоnd the day period prescribed apt to be harder to show 795.2. The under parties dispute Jen- 795.1 than § whether 795.2. Never- noncompliance circumstances dis- State’s 795.- theless we believe the Code § that, for the closed here constitute provides per- statute “When a fаilure to file the information prosecution’s offense, is held to public son answer for a if within the 30 of limitation. against an indictment not be found thirty the court must days, within order the There were no in the district dismissed, to prosecution be the direct time. This absence was at the to contrary the be shown.” Defend- delay obviously and was be cause of the 19, May ant was held to answer on 1975. The 30 prosecutor. the control of the yond 18,1975. June 30-day period expired A but period necessarily of limitation is charging information relatively short. Judicial conferences are with the offense not filed in district But regular on a somewhat basis. called 1975, court until June five days beyond nothing prosecutor there is to indicate the 2¾ the period. maximum statutory would be out of the was advised all expired. district when the 30 filed State an unverified resistance prosecutor Therefore not the we do believe motion, defendant’s alleging to that an as- knowledge charged should be of the county sistant attorney attempted dates of the conferences. 18, file the information on June the last day 30-day of the unable to suggests period, but wаs prosecution Defendant the the practicing approval a form of obtain of a district court brinkmanship delay- in all of ing presentation of the information until because of the the 30th statute were day. attending However the accords a conference in Des 23, 30 full prosecutors Approval submit Moines. was obtained on file attorney They informations. first asserted was “the State should carefully prepared. be In view of available date for filing.” the relatively period short involved it is in Upon submission of the motion the State way unprecedented no when an information allega- offered no evidence to support the presented is on the last available date. its tions of resistance. Judge Osmundson We believe the in this case are facts made no findings merely of fact relied but typical of what the intended in legislature on the pleadings, holding as follows: setting up “good exception. cause” The Court has reviewed the factual believe cause was shown. allegations of the [sic ?] AFFIRMED. balanced the four finds that factors and 23, 19, May from 1975 to June McCORMICK, except All Justices concur 1975 does to the of unconsti- not rise level RAWLINGS, JJ., MASON and who dissent. delay. tutional McCORMICK, (dissenting). Justice Lee, v. 222 N.W.2d 471 at See State no in support State offered evidence is, of its to Dismiss allegations unverified factual ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍Defendant’s Motion therefore, resistance to the motion to dismiss. The overruled. and, findings

trial court made no of fact as concedes, ruling As the result- majority concedes, motion overruled the an application ed from erroneous to dismiss on an untenable basis. This law. was based on Defendant’s motion now, court in our principles violation right 795.1 and not on his constitutional cases and in the record any without basis The statute is more restric- speedy trial. so, doing finds the facts de novo and and, tive than the Constitution unlike the affirms the which is trial court on a basis Constitution, arbitrary fixes an deadline. interpretations inconsistent with our prior 445, Nelson, v. 222 N.W.2d See State of Code 795.1 and 795.2. §§ statute sets (Iowa (“Every limitation certain up It an after which agreed arbitrary I. the defendant filed a date rights actions timely ground motion to dismiss on the cannot be or certain are judges, prosecutors jurors or showing escape the One cannot enforced. cannot be of court ad- showing they not for some reason available of such statutes effect factor bit.”). appropriate an a little ministration. To be only violated were showing good on the mo- review of the II. Our unique оr product of a sudden must be is not de novo. State to dismiss tion Newman, event. and non-chronic 1976). (Iowa LaPlant, sudden 1977) (“The N.W.2d evidence to no presented Here or unavailability of a constitut- to establish facts meet its burden Goff, delay.”); cause for and, consequently, the trial ing goоd 1976) (good cause not 244 N.W.2d 579 make which to upon had no record unavailability not do so. As a findings of fact and did vacation, sick, on where one was one was result, proof the record contains no eight to serve remaining two had evidentiary lacks the decision causе and week); v. each State different courthouses clearly places ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍the Because 795.1 support. § Leonard, 1976) (good (Iowa 240 N.W.2d 690 State, good cause on the prove burden to was not when the State established nothing carry to that the did 60-day peri- the try unable to a сase within burden, basis in itself to is a sufficient this own motion judge od because a trial on his reverse the trial court. See Williamson Wright, date); 1974) continued the trial (Iowa Casey, 220 N.W.2d 1975) (good cause not on upheld be N.W.2d 99 (“Trial court’s cannot judges of due support It has no speculation. the bаsis of established record.”). congestion); to in the chronic court Hines, (good Moreover, III. even if the facts recited judge a contin- where cause not established majority opinion in the been the the end of days ued the case five before record, good thе do not constitute in discharge of 60-day period for trial because they show a cause under 795.1. At most depleted of a jury panel). judicial was not available in the sixth judge attorney’s approve county to the district holdings plain. for these The reason statutory the informаtion on the last of for legislature provide any did not basis avail- period. judge assume a was excusing duty its the State from days. prose- each of prior able the simply 795.1 and 795.2 because the §§ learned the were in Des judges cutor is not the As ob- prosecutor’s fault. we Moines, City, аt about 120 miles from Iowa Leonard, in served State v. 240 N.W.2d at judicial regularly scheduled semi-annual public policy the reflect a statutes further effort to conference. He made no government the has an affirmative approval obtain of information until the duty statutory rights tо effectuate. The to in judge present five later when a was speedy merely indictment trial are not County. Johnson rights They of a defendant. are a reflec- charges of a legislative policy tion that majority finds cause because peri- allotted and tried within the judgеs “beyond the absence of the con- public the Through legislation, ods. this trol of the “there is prosecutor”, because courts be expressed has will that the its nothing prosecutor to the was ad- indicate provided with resources and administered the vised all would be district wаy carry Today’s to policy. out this expired”, when the 30 and be- depar- an represents decision unwarranted prosecutor cause it was for appropriate the ture from that principle. to the on the last avail- present information day. able majori- The second factor relied on factor, ty, nothing it must be admitted that “there is to indicate As to the first prosecutor would be did not cause the unavaila- advised all prosecutor district”, However, ignores un- out of the the fact 795.1 good cause bility judges. places cause on merely by burden to establish the statute is not established der statutory if he arrives at perform duty require' not The statute does the State. is not sched- prosecutor and finds court courthouse prove what defendant under the until the last Similarly, Even uled. if he waits knew or did not know. opinion, noth- infоrma- recited in the minute to file a facts tion, estab- is shown to establish that he should be held have ing not. would be goes because he simply should not have known lished date involved. bur- on the and does not find a unavailable the courthouse State, not the defendant. I timely filing. is with the for aрprove den there to present case was problem believe the in the in view greater significance assumes This making because own Procedure, 378(a), Rules of Civil of rule filing of the plan timely his failure to for required involved here which at the time charge. He knew he had tо have at least aby session “[a] as- nothing in advance to approval but did the dis- in each once each week it in time. I sure himself he could obtain form of a trict, in the announced advance * * difficulty was self-imposed would hold this schedule, printed written or delay. not for unwilling to as- I am (Emphasis supplied). sixth sume, that the proof, without I would reverse. rule, nor with this comply district did not that assume, proof, without willing I am RAWLINGS, JJ., join MASON as- not have a written County Johnson did dissent. schedule showing the court signment least, very here. At the period involved been on the State the burden should havе otherwise.

show or- and others must prosecutors

I believe foreseeing the charged

dinarily lawyers, espe- Most

availability judges. where those in rural counties cially CLUB, INC., and OAK LEAF COUNTRY day, accept present every cannot be Farms, Inc., Appellants, Reinbeck could private practice A reality. lawyer until someone told surely not afford to wait to be available ‍‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​​​​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​‌‌‍gоing WILSON, when a Appellee. Harold K. transacting the courthouse before at 2-58405. No. expect too much to there. It is not business Supreme Court of Iowa. keep themselves prosecutors that schedules regular of the informed 21, 1977. Sept. their counties.

The third factor relied on answer. An administra-

deserves the same office

tive breakdown in the not constitute cause.

does 1975).

Sassman, not wait until should statutory duty out his carry

last minute to going he is he is assured reasonably He permitted. the time

to finish within with- encouraged proceed

should not be If he decides regard to court schedules. fifty- on the a trial

he wants to commence 795.- 60-day period

ninth failing forgiven he should not be

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Hathaway

Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa

Date Published: Sep 21, 1977

Citation: 257 N.W.2d 735

Docket Number: 59964

Court Abbreviation: Iowa