State v. Cooper, 83-137
| Decision Date | 15 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-137,83-137 |
| Citation | 343 N.W.2d 485 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellant, v. Venice (NMN) COOPER, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Mary Jane Blink, Asst. Atty. Gen., James C. Bauch County Atty., and Theodore R. Stone, Asst. County Atty., for appellant.
Virginia Hollins Davidson, Asst. Public Defender, Waterloo, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, P.J., and LARSON, SCHULTZ, CARTER, and WOLLE, JJ.
Defendant Cooper was accused of theft of property not exceeding fifty dollars in value, a simple misdemeanor. Iowa Code § 714.2(5). Here, however, because of two prior convictions for theft, she was charged under section 714.2(3) (1983) which permits a charge of theft in the third degree, an aggravated misdemeanor, for theft "by one who has before been twice convicted of theft." The district court here found that at the time of both prior convictions, Cooper was indigent and not advised of her right to appointed counsel. On both occasions, the court had been advised the state was not seeking a jail sentence and fines were imposed.
In the district court, Cooper moved to dismiss, claiming that because her prior convictions were obtained without the benefit of counsel, the State was not permitted to use them to enhance the new charge. The district court agreed and dismissed the charge. 1 We affirm.
The State concedes that Cooper could not be sentenced to imprisonment where the sentence was based in part, as it would be here under the enhanced charge, on prior uncounseled convictions. Baldasar v. Illinois, 446 U.S. 222, 100 S.Ct. 1585, 64 L.Ed.2d 169 (1980). In Baldasar, a twenty-nine dollar theft offense was prosecuted as a felony under an enhancement statute because of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor theft conviction. The Supreme Court overturned the felony judgment and sentence of imprisonment. The State contends, however, that Baldasar serves only to prevent incarceration on the present charge, that it does not void the charge or conviction.
We find that the reasoning of Baldasar and our own view of the importance of counsel preclude an enhanced conviction as well as a sentence of imprisonment. People v. Rocha, Colo., 650 P.2d 569, 570 (1982) (); State v. Nordstrom, 331 N.W.2d 901, 903-905 (Minn.1983) (); People v. Dorn, 105 Misc.2d 244, 431 N.Y.S.2d 974 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Woodruff
...the right to due process. ¶19 The cases cited for the holding in Watchman with respect to the New Mexico Constitution are State v. Cooper, 343 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 1984), State v. Hamilton, 104 N.M. 614, 725 P.2d 590 (Ct.App.1986), and State v. Ramirez, 89 N.M. 635, 556 P.2d 43 (Ct.App.1976). S......
-
State v. Young
...only invoked the Sixth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d 263, 264–65 (Iowa 2004) (per curiam); State v. Cooper, 343 N.W.2d 485, 486 (Iowa 1984), overruled by Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d at 265; Osmundson, 315 N.W.2d at 10. Particularly instructive is Osmundson. In Osmundson, an ind......
-
Sargent v. Com.
...S.W.2d 445 (Ky.Ct.App.1986); State v. Wiggins, 399 So.2d 206 (La.1981); State v. Orr, 375 N.W.2d 171 (N.D.1985); see also State v. Cooper, 343 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 1984) (holding that two prior uncounseled convictions for theft prevented the state from convicting defendant of theft in the third......
-
State v. Watchman
...with Ulibarri and fails to satisfy fundamental due process requirements of the New Mexico Constitution. See also State v. Cooper, 343 N.W.2d 485 (Iowa 1984) (lack of reliability of prior uncounseled conviction of indigent defendant prevents enhancement of later sentence); State v. Hamilton,......