State of Iowa v. Shane Karl Brown

Court of Appeals of Iowa

State of Iowa v. Shane Karl Brown

918 N.W.2d 502

CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa

DecidedApril 18, 2018

Docket17-0408

StatusPublished

This text of 918 N.W.2d 502 (State of Iowa v. Shane Karl Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Iowa v. Shane Karl Brown, 918 N.W.2d 502 (iowactapp 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

CARR, Senior Judge.

Shane Karl Brown appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his guilty plea to one charge of assault while displaying a weapon. He contends the plea proceedings failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) because no mention was made of any possible immigration consequences.

Brown failed to challenge the adequacy of his guilty plea through a motion in arrest of judgment. Failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment waives a defendant's right to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea on appeal. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a). Brown argues he was not sufficiently advised of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment, avoiding waiver of his right to appeal the legality of his plea. See State v. Oldham , 515 N.W.2d 44 , 46 (Iowa 1994).

Brown's written guilty plea states:

I understand that any challenge to the guilty plea or alleged defects in the plea proceedings must be raised by a written Motion in Arrest of Judgment filed no later than 45 days after my plea is accepted, but not less than 5 days before the date set for pronouncing judgment, and that failure to raise such challenge shall preclude the right to assert them in this Court or on appeal to another Court.

This language tracks the language of rule 2.8(2)(d), which states: "The court shall inform the defendant that any challenges to a plea of guilty based on alleged defects in the plea proceedings must be raised in a motion in arrest of judgment and that failure to so raise such challenges shall preclude the right to assert them on appeal." We employ a substantial compliance standard in reviewing for compliance, which the quoted guilty plea language plainly meets. See State v. Straw , 709 N.W.2d 128 , 132 (Iowa 2006). Because Brown was adequately apprised of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge the adequacy of his plea, his failure to do so precludes his argument on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CARR, Senior Judge.

Shane Karl Brown appeals the judgment and sentence entered following his guilty plea to one charge of assault while displaying a weapon. He contends the plea proceedings failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b) because no mention was made of any possible immigration consequences.

Brown failed to challenge the adequacy of his guilty plea through a motion in arrest of judgment. Failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment waives a defendant's right to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea on appeal. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a). Brown argues he was not sufficiently advised of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment, avoiding waiver of his right to appeal the legality of his plea. See State v. Oldham , 515 N.W.2d 44 , 46 (Iowa 1994).

Brown's written guilty plea states:

I understand that any challenge to the guilty plea or alleged defects in the plea proceedings must be raised by a written Motion in Arrest of Judgment filed no later than 45 days after my plea is accepted, but not less than 5 days before the date set for pronouncing judgment, and that failure to raise such challenge shall preclude the right to assert them in this Court or on appeal to another Court.

This language tracks the language of rule 2.8(2)(d), which states: "The court shall inform the defendant that any challenges to a plea of guilty based on alleged defects in the plea proceedings must be raised in a motion in arrest of judgment and that failure to so raise such challenges shall preclude the right to assert them on appeal." We employ a substantial compliance standard in reviewing for compliance, which the quoted guilty plea language plainly meets. See State v. Straw , 709 N.W.2d 128 , 132 (Iowa 2006). Because Brown was adequately apprised of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge the adequacy of his plea, his failure to do so precludes his argument on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

918 N.W.2d 502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-shane-karl-brown-iowactapp-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack