*1 plaintiffs to our calculation According plus damage bills and doctor
hospital This means the total $3194.80.
automobile something over plaintiff
jury awarded pain suffering wages, for loss
$4300 Although delay graduating. in for the larger warranted a would have
the evidence the verdict failed to say
verdict we cannot between the justice
administer substantial inadequacy of the of the
parties because
amount awarded. legal
There sound basis for was no motion granting plaintiff’s
trial court’s trial;
for new the court abused its discre- granting
tion in the motion. Appeals
The decision of the re-
versing remanding the case for rein- jury verdict is—Affirmed.
statement Kalona, Wright,
Earl 0. appellant. for Iowa, Appellee, Turner, Gen., Atty. Richard C. and Edwin Jr., Kelly, County F. Atty., appellee. Larry LONGBINE, Appellant. Joe MOORE, REES, Considered C. UHLENHOPP, HARRIS and McCOR- MICK, Court of Iowa. JJ. REES, Justice. charged by county
Defendant was ney’s information with the crime 711.2, in violation of § Code, day 1975. On the the informa- filed, tion was appeared and en- guilty. tered a weeks there- Some after, following receipt by the court of an presentence investigation, elaborate ant was sentenced to incarceration for a years term of 25 at Fort Madison. He appeals, and we affirm. background
The factual of this case is not disputed. Defendant and three accom- armed, plices, gun shop all entered a county, up rural Jefferson tied a clerk and $50,000 approximately guns. took worth of *2 528 presentation the accomplicesinadvertent- to the court of the
One back- it his name on at bag guns ground a of with ly left facts of the case. We find no merit which led to the scene of the crime in defendant’s contention in regard. this the arrest of de- consequently and arrest II. Even assuming defendant was accomplices. The and the other fendant by county threatened the attorney with the accomplices appeared on names of all three filing of charges additional in order to in to the testimony appended the minutes of plea duce his guilty of to the information indicating information county attorney’s charging him with robbery with aggrava against the defendant. they testify would tion, there is still no merit in defendant’s furnished the presentence report The position. Defendant relies on Hayes v. clearly defendant’s record court indicates Cowan, (6 547 1976), F.2d 42 Cir. in which filing charge of a of his support would the the Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the is being a habitual criminal. One issue conviction of the defendant on due review; presented namely, that the grounds prosecution when the carried out a county attorney threat of the to file a threat made during plea bargaining negoti charge against being the defendant of a to charge ations the defendant as a habitual induced the defendant’s habitual offender criminal if persisted the defendant in plead a with plea guilty robbery of to ing guilty charges to the in the original charge already filed and constituted an im- indictment. The United Supreme States permissible powers use of the of the office granted Court certiorari in Hayes re and county attorney. of the versed decision of the Sixth Circuit Court. Hayes (decided Bordenkircher v. guilty plea hearing I. At the the January 1978),-U.S.-, 98 only any mention in the record of reference S.Ct. 663, 54 Bordenkircher, L.Ed.2d 604. In the the threat to file a habitual offender held, “that the course charge against the is as follows: of * * conduct engaged by prosecutor , the ask, “THE May gentle- COURT: I also which no openly presented more than the men, plea is this a result any plea defendant with the unpleasant alternatives bargaining? foregoing facing trial or charges on Honor, “MR. WRIGHT: Your I have which he plainly subject prosecution, been bargaining county did not violate the Due Process Clause of ney’s office in that as much the county as the Fourteenth Amendment.” attorney possibly could bring the habitual against defendant, offender act the jurisdiction Cases in this seem to be in county attorney’s the agreed office has line with the reasoning in Bordenkircher v. bring not to this other Hayes. We have said that while involun Honor, “MR. KELLY: Your Mr. tary guilty pleas are acceptable, the Wright is correct. I’ve simply stated to fact that a plea was by possibil induced him that we are no other criminal ity of a more charge serious does not render charges against the defendant but this plea involuntary. Bennett, Brewer v. particular charge.” (Iowa 161 N.W.2d 1968). 751 We have also said “a guilty plea does not lose defendant contends the its foregoing ex- validity represents because it change voluntary demonstrates the a county attorney intelligent charging authority among abused his choice and obtained alternative courses of open the defendant’s action guilty to the rob- to an indicted ac Dee, bery with cused.” aggravation charge by threaten- State 218 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 1974). ing to file a habitual criminal even if the So record can be read indicating that the court therefore erred in as a accepting by threat the county guilty plea attorney against defendant’s to the by the defendant present aggravation charge. ing Defendant states alternative courses of action to the de there is evidence of vindictiveness on the fendant depending plea, on his we are not part persuaded in relation to such conduct violated the defend- law under ant’s to due the United Iowa,
Fourteenth Amendment Appellee, and did render States Constitution plea involuntary. ZYLSTRA, Appellant, Herman Paul nothing in sum, we find the record was “threatened” indicate the defendant *3 Kuipers, Appellant. Peter of addi- plead guilty refused to charges if he tional In Supreme Court of Iowa. Hayes we of Bordenkircher light view that if such incline to the even been made that conduct
“threats” had said
was violative not law. We therefore affirm
due
the trial court.
AFFIRMED. concur, McCORMICK, except
All Justices specially. who concurs
McCORMICK, (concurring spe- Justice
cially). agree not
I the record does show an crimi-
ant threatened with habitual plead guilty, and I
nal if he did - Hayes, U.S. agree Bordenkircher (1978),
-,
holds such process under the fourteenth amend-
due Constitution.
ment of the United States
However, also on la. relies is a guarantee I which state
Const. Art. § are not Bor- We bound process. due our state constitu- applying
denkircher we well might case appropriate
tion. an four adopt position
desire to in con- justices in Bordenkircher
dissenting This the state due clause.
struing the record does
is not a case because such alleged threat or its circum-
not show the necessary is not Consequently it
stances. issue, I state constitutional
decide the deciding it today.
take it we are