*1 Iowa, Appellee, STATE OHNEMUS, Appellant.
David 58999.
No. Iowa. Supreme 25, 1977. May Laden, Laden, P.C., Hyland & H.
Robert appellant. Moines, for Des Turner, Atty. Gen., C. Richard P. Gen., Robbins, Atty. Criswell, John Asst. W. Atty., appellee. County MOORE, J., Heard C. and RAWL- INGS, REES, REYNOLDSON, and HAR- RIS, JJ.
RAWLINGS, Justice. accepted court defendant’s guilty Trial charge entering dwelling a plea to with intent to commit a nighttime appeals from judgment He at- We reverse. tendantly entered. instantly involved The events allegedly the Jim occurred County. Warren Other home in rel- mobile be forth as will set relate evant facts presented. here to issues support reversal Ohnemus, contends his guilty plea
David because fatally deficient (1) understandably advise him failed re charged the offense or to explain garding nature thereof adequately deter aof factual existence basis for mine assignments will These considered presented. order in the are satisfied defendant’s first I. We con- merit. has tention twice the plea At least it clear the court made entering offense of the “included in the dwelling nighttime with public offense”. to commit *2 clearly reveals no inquiry record incident contravened this formal But the confes- trial court as to by made any time testimony injected was at His the sion. doctrine element of the stated “intent” the essential thereby and created an of self-defense fact, Fetters, 202 N.W.2d See State cited).” (authorities of issue 84, (Iowa trial court did Manifestly, not so advise regard, our review also Further possessed that he an under never made any state- Ohnemus discloses law in standing of the relation to the facts. minimally manifested his even ment which 394 U.S. See was effected with the alleged entry 459, 89 S.Ct. perpetrate of- and there to then Hoskins v. in the course of a Conversely, collo- fense. Buhr, State v. 1976); 266, (Iowa judge and the quy between trial 546, (Iowa 1976), and cita no “I had intentions of harm- latter stated: Greene, tions; 829, 226 N.W.2d State when went out (to there the ing anybody Bishop, Guilty A. Pleas in the home). by was stabbed twice Tyler Midwest, 25 Drake L.Rev. Northern definitely gotten he would have Tyler and Therefore, it cannot be said want again. go, I didn’t but I me was guilty plea voluntarily was and talked I was into it.” This and alone drunk Boykin v. Ala entered. intelligently See have alerted court to the need should 238, 242-244, bama, exploration explanation and of for “intent” factor. Surely defend- the vital accepting erred in Trial court and enter- statement, supra, was as part much a upon defendant’s guilty plea. uttering the as word plea “guilty”. of his alone mandates reversal. foregoing, this apt of the state- light In related to the Closely foregoing, II. Morgan, ment in Henderson however, assignment second is defendant’s 2253, 2258, 49 646, 96 L.Ed.2d 108 absence of a shown factual basis brought initially play: into (1976) is Brain for the controverted in nothing is this “There record that ard v. as a substitute either a can serve 1974), citations. and trial, or a finding voluntary after admis- Brainard, explained As sion, had the respondent requisite that Sisco, N.W.2d 542 State counsel did not purport intent. Defense two purposes. fundamental guidelines fact; to that did not stipulate significantly relates to the of those One plea his him that would be an explain guilty plea proceedings to be need for made fact; and he of that made no admission may be appropriate so there ap- record of or admission necessari- factual statement review. pellate he had such that intent. ly implying it impossible
these circumstances
During
presently
proceed-
plea
unexplained
to the
that
conclude
engaged
court and defendant
ings,
* * *
voluntary.”
was
interchange:
too, as noted in United
ex
States
Then
indictment
Brierley,
Crosby
rel.
(3d
F.2d
involving
with the crime
charges you
1968):
Cir.
charge that occurred at the Jim
burglary
Crosby’s testimony introduced
early morning
“When
house on the
trailer
self-defense,
of
an infirmity
also
you
the element
hours
plea
guilty. The articu-
case of
of Iowa vs.
crept into the
testified
defendant’s words ‘guilty
Halterman and
of the
did as the
lation
William
signified a formal confession of
degree
large
substantiate to a
generally’
recalls
equivalent
of law
as a matter
to a
testimony of the
wit-
guilt
of the
State’s
most
guilty, (authority cited),
verdict
jury
your
for the contention on
nesses
except
he used to describe the
words
but
door of the
trailer
that
More
all times and
no
specifically,
that there
there is
open
affirmative
you or
anyone else
exerted
which to
upon
no force
now
showing
determine ac-
to that trailer
gain entrance
plea
with
was fac-
ceptance
-
house, is
correct?
proper.
that
tually
Brady
justified
is correct.
*3
And
did take
Alabama,
at
Boykin v.
U.S.
the Jim Tyler
at
house?
fight
1711-1712; Brainard
State,
at
S.Ct.
Yes, I did.”
722-723.
at
N.W.2d
the above
Noticeably,
verbiage
italicized
reversed and remanded with
by trial court
to as-
case is
resort
constituted a
(1) set aside the
to
of record.
in turn
instructions
not
sumptions
entered;
(2) permit
speculate
withdrawal
left
heretofore
means we are
plea;
facts
pursue
testimonial
relied on be-
undisclosed
appropriate proceedings.
McCarthy
See State
low. See
1975).
Vogel,
case. But the salient thereof specially. who concurs have been might better summarized of rec by appropriate direct inquiry ord followed HARRIS, (concurring specially). Justice as to the accuracy inac ed to defendant express my obliged feel belief thereof. curacy distinguished easily case can from State event, would have been any Reaves, 254 N.W.2d from to solicit defendant a well advised date). Here the (filed this assurances of just as to what he did record statement that he had counsel advised defend- defense alleged Tyler home en- connection with rights satisfy requirements ant which there try transpired. and events Alabama, Boykin v. at L.Ed.2d However de- 1171; v. Greene, 226 at of any denial later criminal intent fendant’s Hansen, citing State v. N.W.2d of counsel’s assurances. contradiction ABA Stan- agree circumstances the trial Under the to Pleas of Relating Guilty, 1.6 and dards § made further inquiry court should have (Approved Commentary Draft determine if aware of intent. See Henderson v. Mor- element gan, Even more elusive recon- court’s concur. presence I therefore
dite dur- reference related Steve Jamison vein, In this we cause. preceding involving guilty pleas are said no two cases Brainard
exactly alike. also 25 at 723. See Drake L.Rev. at 365-366.
Although
presiding judge
was satis
a factual
existed
basis for de
fied there
plea, the
fendant’s
record before us
wanting for purpose
much
leaves too
review. See Brain
knowledgeable appellate
ard