*1 STATE GILLESPIE,

Christopher Thure Appellant. 22, 1978. II, DeLange

Harold J. of Wehr & De- Lange, Davenport, appellant. for Turner, Gen., Atty. Richard C. and Eliza- Shaw, beth County Atty., appellee. for REYNOLDSON, C. Considered LeGRAND, McCORMICK, McGIVERIN LARSON, JJ. McGIVERIN, Justice. Christopher Gillespie Thure

appeals from an order his motion in sentencing after follow- robbery ag- for without gravation in violation of Section Code, 1977. He contends he was due of law because the trial court an affirmative on did not obtain the record that he understood the nature of charge and the law as to the accepting guilty in the before facts case We affirm the trial court. charged by county attor- Defendant was ney’s robbery aggra- information alleged vation. The information that he Meyers robbed Bill or did aid and abet commission appeared in court with offense. guilty counsel and entered robbery lesser offense of without included aggravation.

Before the trial accepting judge age ascertained defendant was education, and could grade had a tenth read English. and write The court also instruct- ed defendant on the essential elements of aggravation, by pleading guilty, would waive *2 law. THE prescribed by sentence COURT: . . you Did discuss matters. A fac- stated he understood these with the defendant aiding the and abet- developed which showed de- tual basis was ting situation under the law where he can get-away drove the car be tried and convicted as a principal? knife, with a juvenile, while a armed robbed Yes, your A. Honor Meyers. Mr. grocery operated store Cross-examination Mr. DeLange: told the court his version of Defendant also Q. Why did you review that with Mr. the facts which substantiated a factual ba- Gillespie, Well, Shifley? Mr. A. it was theory sis for the based on a that the basis of the whole case against him. defendant aided and abetted another Obviously, go he didn’t in with the knife committing robbery. The court did try and to hold Mr. Meyer. only The way aiding the law of and abetting discuss that he could be held for this was aiding with defendant as it to the robbery person, and the other who I be- charge or facts of this case. Defendant’s years lieve was seventeen old at the time. attorney, Shifley, Doren told the court he only That was the basis for the State’s carefully gone over all the evidence in case, and, course, it revolved around— case, including a confession then, they whatever case had revolved ant, defenses, possible and and concluded around whether he actually knowing- there was no reason that defendant should ly aiding not, and abetting or and it re- He recommended that the volved around the confession. It re- accept court defendant’s volved around the facts and circumstanc- stated was satisfied the services of es as to his actions at the time in regards his attorney attorney and that the had done leaving waiting with his car scene — everything desired. defendant store, close to the leaving the scene with The court followed the substance of the car, the co-defendant in try- and then findings recommended outline and made ing pickup to outrun this that was follow- suggested in Brainard v. Davenport. them around the City of 711, (Iowa 1974) Q. You reviewed all of Chris? A. Yes. 27, On October 1977 the court sentenced 1, On March 1978 the court entered an prison defendant to a term based on the order, conclusions, findings detailed and guilty plea and conviction. denied the motion. The court specifically counsel, changing appointed After court found that Shifley fully and com- defendant on December 21 filed a motion in pletely apprised defendant of the nature of 788, under him, charge against including the conse- Code, 1977, required by as our mandate in quences and abetting par- 488, State ticipant in the crime. On 1978 defendant filed notice As relevant to this defendant of the court motion claimed his was ille- to, rulings prior during, and all orders and Sisco, gal under 169 N.W.2d 542 subsequent (Iowa 1969) and Brainard v. proceeding which are adverse to defendant. should be set aside. However, defendant’s brief states his the March February peal only At the taken from on motion, his motion in arrest of defendant testified that no one ev- thereby raised ment. We treat the issues explained er to him he could be convicted actually being per- accordingly. committing the robbery, son instead appeal. I. of this Prelimi- Jurisdiction being only an accomplice. narily we are confronted with the issue of However, attorney Doren Shifley, testi- whether we have entertain fied at the as follows: defendant’s conviction

Judgment of and sentence After recognizing general rule to be were entered on October 1977. Section that an order upon entered a motion in provides “appeal only can be taken appealable, is not from the final and within sixty days thereafter.” On December exception subscribed to an general *3 defendant, following prerequi- the Reaves rule and stated: appeal challenging adequacy site for an This inferentially means a defendant of his filed a motion in arrest of may, by motion arrest of judgment in the trial court instead of a evidence, with the aid of extrinsic estab- timely appeal notice of to this court. The lish a violation of constitutional or funda- motion was set for at a later time. mental apparent which are not Defendant’s notice of filed record, inhere in the whole as a result of 11,1978 was within days after the March legal judgment which no pro- could be 1 order overruling his motion of nounced. judgment. However, appeal was not filed days within 60 after the October interpreted by Section 793.2 was State v. 1977judgment and sentence. Clayton, 1974) Should right defendant be of a where we judgment stated: “The final in a appeal delay due to the necessitated criminal case means sentence. The sen- following procedural requirement of tence judgment.” is the In that case the awaiting ruling Reaves and thereon? Some attempt defendant did not appeal to file an assistance problem on this is in State found until eight months after sentencing. Clay- Hellickson, v. ton did cite or involve the exception (Iowa 1968) where the state moved to dis- Hellickson carved out for a appeal miss an on the ground adjudica- an ruling on motion in arrest. tion on a motion in judgment appealable an order. We believe in view of the require Although guilty plea proceeding Reaves, ment of that a defendant desiring that defendant claimed there had been no challenge the adequacy guilty plea of his promises threats or plea, to induce his in his proceeding must first file a motion in arrest motion in arrest he promises claimed had in the trial court and receive induced the There we said: thereon, ruling appeal an under Section Actually, presented the issue here days is valid if filed within 60 of an whether an appeal post-sen- lies from a ruling adverse on the motion. For that tence arrest of order. purpose circumstance, and under that appeal Furthermore no lies adverse ruling on the motion from an an arrest of filed under 788 is a final ground ment motion on a which could judgment under Section have been Code. appeal reviewed on We hold that we have to en- In the instant case defendant chose not tertain defendant’s under the record sentence, to appeal from electing to exer- in this case. statutory cise his right to later seek ar- II. The motion in arrest of judgment. rest judgment upon premise We turn now to the issue raised guilty plea was not and volun- ant. In substance This, he claims he

tarily true, entered. was de- if did not pear on the record. prived Id. at 392-393. of due of law because trial court failed to discuss the law aiding We again note that Gillespie, in contrast abetting with him and obtain an affirma- to the defendant in was man- tive on the record that defendant dated requirement Reaves to file a aspect understood that motion in arrest of the law at and did not have the initial option to file an time his was taken. record shows that de amply fully explained fendant’s STATE of to de law relative prior fendant KYLE, Appellant. John Thomas Reppert, Cf. 1974) (At taking, de told the court understood the penalty charges against for one of the him.). regard discharg In this counsel was 1978. duty advising his client and to the State v. contemplated court as Williams, 494; State v.

254 N.W.2d at (Iowa 1974). *4 N.W.2d We hold that at the the record made on the mo can be used to supply tion arrest defi ciency in the record made at the time of the relative to the law Adams v. abetting. (Iowa 1978),

authorities cited therein.

From the entire record made at the plea taking on motion in are satisfied defendant knew

and understood the essential elements of the crime of and the law aiding abetting as it applied to him at time he His was volun tary and in accord with due of law. Rand, N.W.2d

The trial court was correct in denying defendant’s motion in arrest of The case is—AFFIRMED. McCORMICK,

All Justices concur except specially. who concurs McCORMICK, (concurring spe- Justice cially).

Although I expressed adhere to the views Adams v. in the dissent 1978), I N.W.2d 442 concur in opinion procedure in this case because majority here is authorized under the used holding in Adams.