Krogmann v. State
Decision Date | 22 June 2018 |
Docket Number | No. 15-0772,15-0772 |
Citation | 914 N.W.2d 293 |
Parties | Robert KROGMANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Iowa, Appellee. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Angela L. Campbell of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha A. Trout and Robert H. Sand, Assistant Attorneys General, and John Bernau, County Attorney, for appellee.
In this case, we consider whether Robert Krogmann, a severely mentally ill defendant charged with attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury in connection with an attack on his former girlfriend, is entitled to a new trial after the State limited his access to his personal funds by freezing his assets prior to trial.Krogmann claims the order freezing his assets was illegal and imposed for an improper purpose.He also contends the asset freeze adversely impacted his ability to defend himself by, among other things, preventing him from posting bond, inhibiting his ability to select his counsel of choice, limiting the number of phone calls he could afford to make from jail, and preventing him from hiring a jury consultant to assist his defense.The State asserts Krogmann had sufficient access to resources to pay for competent defense counsel through a court-approval process.The State further contends Krogmann can make no showing of prejudice.
Krogmann filed an application for interlocutory appeal of the freeze order, which we denied.A jury subsequently convicted Krogmann of attempted murder and willful injury causing serious injury.We affirmed his conviction on appeal.State v. Krogmann(Krogmann I ), 804 N.W.2d 518, 520(Iowa2011).On direct appeal, we declined to address Krogmann’s claims regarding the legality of the freeze order as they were not preserved.Id. at 523–25.His postconviction-relief (PCR) application and this appeal therefrom followed.For the reasons expressed below, we affirm in part and vacate in part the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the district court’s judgment, and remand with instructions to vacate Krogmann’s convictions and order a new trial.
A.Introduction.On March 13, 2009, Krogmann shot his former girlfriend, Jean Smith, after Smith ended their relationship.The attack was brutal.Krogmann, armed with a pistol, entered Smith’s home to talk to her about their relationship.After some discussion, Krogmann shot Smith three times, pausing after each shot.He refused to call 911 at the time of the shooting despite pleas from Smith.Krogmann allowed Smith to speak to her mother on the phone, which instigated a chain of events leading to police and paramedics arriving at Smith’s residence.
Krogmann was quickly apprehended and charged with attempted murder in violation of Iowa Code section 707.11(2009) and willful injury causing serious injury in violation of Iowa Code section 708.4(1).Bond was initially set at $750,000 cash only.Smith survived the attack but endured extensive hospitalization, a long period of rehabilitation, and permanent injuries.
Notably, the application did not cite any authority for the total asset freeze or include any factual basis to support the assertion that Krogmann "may attempt to sell or transfer [his assets] to avoid his financial obligations."
The application contained a certificate of service stating it had been served on David Nadler, Krogmann’s attorney of record at the time, by first-class mail on March 24, 2009, but the address listed on the application for Nadler is crossed out with an "X."Underneath the crossed out certificate of service is a notation stating, "Re-mailed on 3–30–09."
Like the asset-freeze application, the order granting the freeze did not cite any authority or legal basis for the asset freeze.
Nadler received the order granting the asset freeze before he saw the application requesting it.Although the court had already entered the order, Nadler filed a resistance to the asset-freeze application on April 2, arguing "the State has cited no authority for [the asset freeze] nor does any exist."On April 28, Nadler filed an application for interlocutory relief, which we denied on May 26.
While Krogmann’s application for interlocutory appeal was pending, he filed a motion to reduce the $750,000 bond amount.Following our denial of interlocutory relief and after holding a hearing, the district court raised the bond amount to $1,000,000 cash only on June 1.
Due to being incarcerated and the asset freeze, Krogmann voluntarily applied for the appointment of a conservator to manage his assets.On April 13, the probate court approved the application, declaring Krogmann "is incapacitated and will be unable to carry on his business and make decisions and transactions for the foreseeable future."The probate court directed the appointed conservator to adhere to the asset-freeze order entered in Krogmann’s criminal case "and make application to the Court for authority to sell or transfer any assets other than in the normal course of the farming operation where the transfer is made for good and valuable consideration."
C.Applications Submitted to the Probate Court Pursuant to Freeze Order.Pursuant to the freeze order, Krogmann, through his conservator, applied to the probate court to expend his assets.The county attorney and the victim were able to review each application and allowed to, and did, object to Krogmann’s requests to use his own assets.
On June 15, Krogmann’s conservator applied to the probate court to mortgage farmland to raise the funds necessary to post bond.The victim, citing her high past and future medical expenses, resisted the application, which the probate court denied on June 20.
On September 3, Krogmann’s conservator applied to the probate court to obtain funds of $500 per month for jail amenities, toiletries, and phone cards to make phone calls from jail.The State, asserting the request was "unreasonable and excessive," resisted the application, which the probate court denied on September 21.
On several occasions, Krogmann’s conservator applied to the probate court for payment of attorney fees in connection with the criminal proceeding.Although payment was sometimes delayed,1 the probate court approved use of Krogmann’s assets to pay for his criminal defense attorneys and some defense expenses.2
On October 16, Krogmann’s conservator, pursuant to Krogmann’s criminal defense attorney’s3 request for an additional $12,000—$4000 to $8000 of which was earmarked for a jury consultant—asked the probate court whether it was necessary to file another application for additional funds or if the court could authorize the additional $12,000 without another application.4In an order entered on October 20, the probate court found "the request [for additional funds] is appropriate in light of the delineated necessities."However, because the request was not submitted as a motion "and other individuals have previously objected to disbursements from this conservatorship,"the court postponed authorizing the funds until the conservator provided notice of the intended disbursement "to all interested parties" and the court received any timely objections.The State objected to funds for a jury consultant, arguing a jury consultant "is considered a luxury rather than a necessity."On October 30...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Sothman v. State
...a constitutional claim, and ‘[w]e review postconviction proceedings that raise constitutional infirmities de novo.’ " Krogmann v. State , 914 N.W.2d 293, 306 (Iowa 2018) (alteration in original) (quoting Castro v. State , 795 N.W.2d 789, 792 (Iowa 2011) ). On de novo review, "we give weight......
-
State v. Krogmann
...relief, we granted Krogmann a new trial because an improper asset freeze had interfered with his defense rights. Krogmann v. State, 914 N.W.2d 293, 326 (Krogmann II) (Iowa 2018). The State retried Krogmann, and in 2021, he was again convicted of attempted murder and willful injury. Krogmann......
-
Hawkins v. Grinnell Reg'l Med. Ctr.
...refusal to submit GRMC’s requested same-decision jury instruction because this issue may occur on retrial. See, e.g. , Krogmann v. State , 914 N.W.2d 293, 325 (Iowa 2018) (addressing nondispositive issue that may occur on retrial).A. The McDonnell Douglas Test. The Supreme Court formulated ......
-
State v. Johnson
...a crime is a lesser included offense, we look to the elements of the offense, not to the particular facts of a case. Krogmann v. State , 914 N.W.2d 293, 325 (Iowa 2018).But citing State v. Adams , Johnson argues the Iowa Supreme Court considers "operating" to be synonymous with "driving." 8......