Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 88 / 05-0290 Filed September 15, 2006 STATE OF IOWA, Appellant, vs. LISA RENAE MAJERES, Appellee.

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Plymouth County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.

Majeres seeks further review of a court of appeals opinion holding that an uncounseled guilty plea can be used to enhance a subsequent offense. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; DISTRICT

COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, Darin J. Raymond, County Attorney, and Amy K. Oetken, Assistant County Attorney, for appellant.

Timothy J. Kramer of Waagmeester Law Office, P.L.C., Rock Rapids, for appellee.

2 WIGGINS, Justice. The district court held the State could not use an uncounseled guilty plea to a prior misdemeanor to enhance a subsequent offense to operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense where the court imposed incarceration as part of its sentence on the prior offense without an in-court colloquy. Our court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling. Because the

defendant's written guilty plea in the prior proceeding met the requirements of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 10 of the Iowa constitution, we affirm the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. A Le Mars police officer stopped a vehicle Lisa Renae Majeres was driving after observing her commit multiple traffic infractions. After failing several field sobriety tests, she was arrested and taken to jail. There

Majeres provided a breath sample revealing a breath alcohol concentration of .236. The State charged Majeres with OWI, third offense, a class "D" felony. Majeres had previously been convicted of OWI, first offense, in March 2000 in Woodbury County and OWI, second offense, in November 2001 in Sioux County. She had an attorney in connection with her guilty plea to the Woodbury County offense. The Sioux County offense was an aggravated misdemeanor. Instead of retaining an attorney for the Sioux County

offense, she signed a plea agreement and written plea of guilty at the county attorney's office. The written plea of guilty stated Majeres acknowledged the charge against her as OWI, second offense; her right to counsel; her right to plead

3 not guilty; the attendant rights of trial; the maximum and minimum sentences; and that her plea was being made intelligently and voluntarily. The county attorney presented the plea to the district court without Majeres' presence. Consequently, she never engaged in an in-court colloquy with a judge concerning her plea. The court accepted her guilty plea, entered a judgment of conviction, and as part of her sentence required her to be incarcerated for seven days. In this case, Majeres claims the State cannot use the uncounseled Sioux County offense for which she was incarcerated to enhance the present charge to OWI, third offense. Majeres' claim. The State filed a notice of appeal. We treated the notice as an We The district court agreed with

application for discretionary review and granted the application.

transferred the case to our court of appeals. Our court of appeals reversed the district court's ruling. review. II. Issue. It has previously been determined under the federal constitution that a court may use prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions where no prison terms are imposed to enhance a subsequent conviction. Nichols v. United States, 511 U.S. 738, 748-49, 114 S. Ct. 1921, 1928, 128 L. Ed. 2d 745, 755 (1994). We have found the Iowa constitution to be in line with the federal constitution in this respect. State v. Allen, 690 N.W.2d 684, 690 (Iowa 2005). subsequent We have not decided if a court, in order to enhance a conviction, may use prior uncounseled misdemeanor We granted Majeres' application for further

convictions where the court imposed incarceration as part of its sentence without an in-court colloquy. The State raises this issue in its appeal.

4 III. Scope of Review. This appeal implicates constitutional claims under the state and federal constitutions. Allen, 690 N.W.2d at 687; State v. Moe, 379 N.W.2d 347, 350 (Iowa 1985). We usually review constitutional claims de novo. Allen, 690 N.W.2d at 687. However, where there is no factual dispute and the only issue is whether a court may constitutionally use a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction to enhance a subsequent crime, our review is for the correction of errors at law. Id. IV. Analysis. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." U.S. Const. amend. VI. Article I, section 10 of the Iowa constitution also provides an accused with the right to the assistance of counsel. Iowa Const. art. I,

Download STATE OF IOWA vs. LISA RENAE MAJERES.pdf

Iowa Law