State of Iowa v. Keith Williams

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 4, 2024
• Docket: 23-1258
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1258 Filed December 4, 2024

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KEITH WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert,

Judge.

A defendant who pled guilty appeals the district court’s imposition of a

sentence provided for in a plea agreement. APPEAL DISMISSED.

Jessica Donels of Parrish Kruidenier, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

Keith Williams appeals the sentence issued following his guilty pleas,

arguing the district court abused its discretion by failing to adequately explain its

reasons for imposing consecutive sentences and by failing to consider inpatient

addiction treatment as an alternative to incarceration. Because Williams has failed

to establish good cause to challenge his sentences, we dismiss his appeal.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

Williams was charged by trial information in early 2023 with twelve criminal

violations. Pursuant to a plea agreement reached with the State, Williams pled

guilty to three charges: amended Count I, possession of heroin with intent to

deliver, a class “C” felony under Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(1) (2023);

Count VII, failure to possess a tax stamp (heroin), a class “D” felony under sections

453B.3 and 453B.12; and Count XI, felon in possession of a firearm, a class “D”

felony under section 724.26. At the combined plea and sentencing hearing, the

parties jointly recommended the “counts would be run consecutive to each other

for a total period of incarceration not to exceed twenty years” and the State would

move to dismiss the remaining nine counts.

The district court then discussed sentencing with Williams:

[COURT] Q. Tell me what your understanding is of the sentencing that would be imposed if I accept that plea agreement. . . . . [WILLIAMS] A. My understanding is that it’s not to exceed twenty years. Q: Consecutive sentences totaling up to twenty years? A. Twenty years. Q. Yes. And go to prison? A. Yes. Q. Are you asking the Court to accept that agreement on those terms? A. Yes. Q. The Court will be accepting the plea agreement as stated by Counsel and confirmed by the defendant on the record such that 3

subject to my acceptance of Mr. Williams’[s] guilty plea here this afternoon, any sentence in this case will embody that agreement.

After accepting Williams’s plea, the district court announced Williams’s

sentences. The court stated:

The sentence for the offenses are as follows: As to Count I, an indeterminant period of incarceration not to exceed ten years, and as to Counts VII and XI, they are each punishable by up to five years in prison. You will receive credit against these sentences for time already served in custody on these offenses since your arrest. These sentences shall run consecutive to each other for a total period of incarceration not to exceed twenty years. Consecutive sentences are being imposed today due to the separate and serious nature of the offenses and as well as in order to carry out the plea agreement.

The written sentencing order accorded with the oral pronouncement. The trial

information’s remaining counts were dismissed.

Williams appeals. The State responds with a challenge to appellate

jurisdiction, arguing Williams failed to establish good cause.

II. Good Cause Under Iowa Code section 814.6

A defendant’s right to appeal is limited when their conviction resulted from

their own guilty plea. State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020) (citing

Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3)). The right of appeal from a guilty plea only exists if a

guilty plea is to a class “A” felony or where a defendant establishes good cause.

§ 814.6(1)(a)(3). So when there is no conviction for a class “A” felony, “[a]

defendant who pled guilty now must establish good cause to appeal.” Damme,

944 N.W.2d at 104. Establishing good cause is the defendant’s burden. Id. When

a defendant fails to meet that burden, “the court has no jurisdiction, and the appeal

must be dismissed.” State v. Rutherford, 997 N.W.2d 142, 144 (Iowa 2023). 4

This good cause requirement arose from a legislative amendment that

became effective July 1, 2019. Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 103. The amendment was

made “to curtail frivolous appeals from guilty pleas and thereby enforce their

finality.” Id. at 100. The meaning of good cause as used in section 814.6(1)(a)(3)

is “a legally sufficient reason.” Id. at 104. Satisfaction of that requirement is

context specific and must “advance, rather than defeat, the purpose of the statute.”

Id. at 104–05 (quoting Rhoades v. State, 880 N.W.2d 431, 447 (Iowa 2016)).

Our supreme court previously said in Damme, “good cause exists to appeal

from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant challenges his or her

sentence rather than the guilty plea.” Id. at 105. But Damme does not rule that

good cause is inherent to any challenged post-plea sentence. The Damme court

held that in the context of an appellate challenge to a post-guilty plea sentencing

order, a defendant establishes good cause “when the defendant appeals a

sentence that was neither mandatory nor agreed to in the plea bargain.” Damme,

944 N.W.2d at 100. It remains undecided by our supreme court whether good

cause exists to appeal a sentence conforming to the bounds of a plea agreement.

State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2022) (saving that question “for

another day”).

The plea agreement included Williams’s consent to the consecutive

sentences totaling up to twenty years. The record shows the court adopted the

parties’ jointly recommended sentence. Williams does not claim the district court

imposed a sentence beyond that contemplated by the agreement. His challenge

is to the reasoning behind the district court’s adoption of the consensual sentence; 5

that argument does not establish good cause. And, unlike in Wilbourn, Williams

alleges no other sentencing error outside the scope of the plea agreement.

Because Williams received the agreed-upon sentence under the plea

agreement, he has not established good cause to appeal. See State v. Thompson,

951 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2020) (“[A] defendant who is not challenging her guilty plea

or conviction has good cause to appeal an alleged sentencing error when the

sentence was neither mandatory nor agreed to in the plea bargain.”); State v.

Estabrook, No. 22-1118, 2023 WL 2671954, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023)

(collecting cases that dismissed appeals “due to lack of showing of good cause

when the sentence imposed is mandatory or the agreed-upon sentence under the

plea agreement”). Without good cause, we have “no jurisdiction, and the appeal

must be dismissed.” Rutherford, 997 N.W.2d at 144.

III. Conclusion

Because Williams failed to establish good cause, we dismiss his appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.