State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 28 September 2016
• Docket Number: No. 15–1180.,15–1180.
• Citation: 888 N.W.2d 680 (Table)
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Roland Ricardo ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Court of Appeals

888 N.W.2d 680 (Table)

STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Roland Ricardo ANDERSON, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 15–1180.

Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Sept. 28, 2016.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by VOGEL, P.J., MCdONALD, J., and BLANE, S.J.^*

BLANE, Senior Judge.

Following a jury trial and guilty verdict, Roland Ricardo Anderson filed a motion to dismiss asserting a violation of the one-year speedy-trial requirement in Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(c). After a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. Following sentencing, Anderson filed a timely notice of appeal. On direct appeal, he argues: (1) the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss for violation of his one-year speedy-trial rights; (2) his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to a number of jury instructions and verdict forms; and (3) at sentencing, the court impermissibly referenced the ongoing gun-control debate before announcing its decision to impose consecutive sentences.

I. Procedural Background.

The State filed a trial information on August 30, 2012, charging Anderson with attempted murder, willful injury causing bodily injury, intimidation with a dangerous weapon, going armed with intent, and possessing a firearm as a felon. Anderson was arraigned on September 13. Trial was originally set for November 6.

On October 23, defense counsel moved for a continuance, asking for time to "finalize discovery and identify issues," as well as moving to stay the proceedings pending a competency evaluation of Anderson. On November 6, the trial court entered an order granting the defendant's motion and staying the proceedings while competency was being assessed. On November 30, the court ordered a psychiatric examination at defense counsel's request. The competency hearing was continued numerous times. When it was finally held on February 15, 2013, defense counsel withdrew the motion for a competency hearing because the examining expert had concluded that Anderson was "competent to stand trial." By order on February 19, the court lifted the stay and trial was set for February 26.

On February 20, Anderson's counsel moved for a trial continuance, noting, "The Defendant has waived speedy trial." On the same day, Anderson filed a signed waiver of the ninety-day speedy-trial right in rule 2.33(2)(b). The court granted the motion, and trial was rescheduled for April 2. On March 28, defense counsel filed another motion to continue. Again, the motion was granted. Trial was rescheduled for April 23. The order granting the motion noted that the defendant had waived speedy trial.

On April 22, defense counsel requested a continuance and listed the reason as "expert still preparing." That request was granted. On May 24, the parties jointly requested a continuance to pursue plea negotiations. Trial was reset for July 23. On July 19, the trial was continued again at the defense's request, listing "schedule expert" as the reason for delay. Trial was reset for July 30. On July 26, again at Anderson's request, the court granted a continuance and rescheduled the trial for August 20.

On August 1, defense counsel filed a second motion for psychiatric evaluation. A hearing was held and the State resisted the application for further psychiatric examination. On August 22, the court granted the defense's motion, entered a stay, and ordered another evaluation to determine Anderson's competency to stand trial.

At the State's request, the court set a probable-cause-to-show-competency hearing for April 18, 2014. Just prior to the April 18 hearing, defense counsel withdrew the motion for a determination of competency. On April 21, the court lifted the stay and set trial for June 24.

On May 30, after a pretrial conference, the court entered an order stating, "The court is advised that the trial date of June 24, 2014 is no longer appropriate." Counsel were directed to contact court administration to set a new trial date. An order was then entered on June 30, stating that "[p]er the order of May 30, 2014, this case is reset for trial on October 28, 2014." A court order on October 7 affirmed this trial date.

On October 24, defense counsel filed a motion to continue because he would be "undergoing knee surgery on October 30, 2014" and would be "unavailable for two weeks." That motion included this statement: "3. The Defendant has filed his Waiver of Speedy Trial (One Year Rule) for this case." The trial court granted the defendant's motion to continue and rescheduled the trial for December 9. The State then filed its only motion for a continuance because of the prosecutor's conflict with another felony case that had been pending trial for over thirty months. The court granted the State's motion and the trial was reset for and commenced on February 10, 2015. On February 17, the jury convicted Anderson of the charges.

On April 10, Anderson filed a motion to dismiss, asserting the State's failure to bring him to trial within one year required dismissal, pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(2)(c). At the hearing, the State orally resisted the motion but did not challenge its timeliness. In a written ruling, the district court denied Anderson's motion, stating:

The court hereby determines that the defendant waived his right to trial within 1 year by both a succession of motions for continuance and by erroneously advising the court that the defendant had waived his right to speedy trial within 1 year in the Motion to Continue filed on October 24, 2014. Trial in this matter was continued on five occasions prior to the final determination that the defendant was competent to stand trial. Four of those continuances were granted following defendant's Motion to Continue. The fifth continuance was granted following a joint motion of the parties for a continuance.

Following the defendant finally being found competent to stand trial, several trial dates were provided to the parties. Either defendant's expert or defendant's counsel were unavailable for the first four of those dates provided. Trial was therefore set upon the fifth such date. That trial date was again continued upon defendant's request. Defendant's actions in this matter constitute a waiver of his right to speedy trial pursuant to Rule 2.33(2)(c).

The court further finds that delay in this matter should be attributable to the defendant. All continuances with the exception of one were at the request of the defendant. At no time did defendant request additional trial dates. All continuances requested by the defendant were for good cause. The State has carried its burden of proving all exceptions to the 1–year speedy trial deadline set forth in Rule 2.33(2)(c). Defendant's motion should therefore be denied.

II. Preservation of "Speedy Trial" Issue.¹

On April 10, 2015, after the conclusion of his trial, Anderson filed his motion to dismiss raising the one-year speedy-trial issue. At the hearing on the motion, the assistant county attorney stated:

I'm not going to stand here and suggest that the one-year speedy trial requirement and the ability to file for a dismissal is waived if not raised before trial. There are some old cases that would suggest that, but I think that's probably inconsistent with the ruling of the new cases. But nobody had brought this up as an issue until the day of the first attempt at sentencing.^{[2 ]}

The Iowa Supreme Court addressed the timing of a motion to dismiss based upon speedy-trial violation in Paulsen, stating, "We have said that a defendant can waive his right to a speedy trial if he raises the issue after a verdict has been returned unless he is unrepresented by counsel and not admitted to bail during the course of the proceedings. " 265 N.W.2d at 585 (Iowa 1978) (emphasis added) (citation omitted).

A review of the record discloses that although Anderson was incarcerated the entire time the case was pending, he was also represented by counsel. Thus, under the case law, Anderson was obligated to file his motion to dismiss before trial or else waive his right to speedy trial.

However, in this case, the State not only did not raise the late filing as an issue, the assistant county attorney conceded—based upon his understanding of recent case law—that Anderson could file his motion after the trial. The trial court set the motion for hearing, held the hearing, and ruled on the motion. In the ruling, the court did not mention or rule on any timeliness issue.

A motion not ruled on in the trial court, where there has been no request or demand for ruling, preserves no error. We would violate our function as a court of review if we were to pass upon the merits of a motion without at least a showing in the record that a trial court ruling was specifically requested, after which it failed or refused to rule.

State v. Schiernbeck, 203 N.W.2d 546, 547 (Iowa 1973) (citation omitted). The same rule applies when there is no ruling on an issue within a motion. State v. Manna, 534 N.W.2d 642, 644 (Iowa 1995). Since the trial court did not rule on the timeliness issue, we are not at liberty in this appeal to address whether Anderson waived his right to speedy trial by filing his motion to dismiss after trial. We proceed to consider the trial court's ruling denying the motion.

III. Standard of Review.

"[T]he court's application of procedural rules governing speedy trial" is reviewed for correction of errors at law. State v. Miller, 637 N.W.2d 201, 204 (Iowa 2001). In that regard, "[t]he trial court's findings of fact upon conflicting evidence are binding [on appeal] if supported by substantial evidence." State v. Bond, 340 N.W.2d 276, 279 (Iowa 1983). However, review of rulings determining the reason for delay is for abuse of discretion. When speedy-trial grounds are at issue in a motion to dismiss, the discretion given to the...