State v. Bedell, 56621
| Decision Date | 28 August 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 56621,56621 |
| Citation | 220 N.W.2d 891 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Philip BEDELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John C. Platt, of Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Stephen T. Moore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Daryl Roberts, Co. Atty., for appellee.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crime of larceny in the nighttime in violation of § 709.4, The Code, and thereafter brought this appeal claiming the trial court erred in accepting it. He contends the requirements of State v. Sisco, 169 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 1969) were not met. We affirm but remand for resentencing.
I. There are four Sisco requirements. Before accepting the plea the trial court must determine (1) whether the defendant understands the charge, (2) whether defendant is aware of the penal consequences of the plea, and (3) whether the plea is entered into voluntarily. Before pronouncing judgment the trial court must determine (4) whether there is a factual basis for the plea. Ryan v. Iowa State Penitentiary, Ft. Madison, 218 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 1974). Defendant's assignments go to the first and third of these requirements. He also complains the trial court failed to advise him of the elements of the crime.
The record discloses the trial court questioned defendant carefully and exhaustively. It was clearly shown defendant understood the nature of the charge and it appeared the plea was entered voluntarily. Defendant's complaint is wholly without support.
The trial court did not specifically list each element of the offense to the accused. On the other hand we believe the record as a whole discloses defendant fully understood the charge and was aware of the elements. Under the circumstances it was not error for the trial court to fail to make a record of each element at the time the plea of guilty was received. State v. Hackett, 201 N.W.2d 487, 490 (Iowa 1972); State v. York, 210 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Iowa 1973); Michels v. Brewer, 211 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1973).
II. Under the mandate given in § 793.18, The Code, we have examined the record to determine whether a substantial right of defendant has been invaded. This duty is incumbent upon us even where, as here, defendant does not raise a particular point. State v. Sonderleiter, 251 Iowa 106, 109, 99 N.W.2d 393, 395.
Upon examination of the record we find, although the trial court made a most substantial record to support the judgment imposed, the county attorney's information does not support it. Section 709.4, The Code, provides alternative punishment for two crimes, one a felony and one an indictable misdemeanor. At the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reaves
...122 (Iowa 1975); State v. Watts, 225 N.W.2d 143, 144-145 (Iowa 1975); State v. Hansen, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bedell, 220 N.W.2d 891, 892 (Iowa 1974). What is meant by the term "understood the nature of the charge?" Obviously it cannot mean the accused should be able to w......
-
State v. Philo
...(Iowa 1975); Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 714-15 (Iowa 1974); State v. Hansen, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bedell, 220 N.W.2d 891, 892 (Iowa 1974)). Philo claims his plea was not intelligent and voluntary because the district court's initial statements during the plea pr......
-
State v. Watts, 57397
...charge when entering the plea. Brainard v. State, Iowa, 222 N.W.2d 711, 715; State v. Hansen, Iowa, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276; State v. Bedell, Iowa, 220 N.W.2d 891, 892, and citations in The extent of the trial judge's explanation and inquiry into defendant's understanding varies with the circum......
-
State v. Oberbreckling, 57398
...Watts, supra; Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 714--715 (Iowa 1974); State v. Hansen, 221 N.W.2d 274, 276 (Iowa 1974); State v. Bedell, 220 N.W.2d 891, 892 (Iowa 1974). In the present case, the trial court made the following inquiry when the plea was 'THE COURT: Mr. Oberbreckling, have yo......