State v. Hanes
| Decision Date | 04 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-1146 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. John Eddie HANES, III, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Jack Bjornstad (argued) of Jack Bjornstad Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In this case, the defendant asks us to create a new exception to the error preservation rules for challenging a guilty plea on direct appeal. He was charged with other alleged gang members detained in a car with a loaded rifle and handgun. The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal gang participation in exchange for dismissal of a companion charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was properly advised of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his guilty plea on appeal but filed no such motion. Instead, his new appellate counsel filed this direct appeal asking that his plea and conviction be vacated for lack of a factual basis. The State moved to dismiss the appeal based on State v. Treptow , 960 N.W.2d 98, 109 (Iowa 2021) (), and Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.24(3)(a ). The defendant resisted, arguing for a new exception based on the district court's independent obligation to ensure a factual basis for the guilty plea. We ordered the State's motion to be submitted with the appeal and retained the case.
On our review, we dismiss the appeal. District courts have an independent duty to ensure guilty pleas are supported by a factual basis, and the court has discretion to arrest a judgment on its own motion. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(c ). But this defendant admittedly was advised of the requirement to file a motion in arrest of judgment to preserve the issue for appeal and we again hold that his failure to do so precludes relief in this direct appeal. See Treptow , 960 N.W.2d at 109 ; see also Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a ).1 Filing the motion alerts the district court to correct any alleged error or issue a ruling for appellate review. A contrary holding would nullify rule 2.24(3)(a ) and deprive the State of notice to supplement the record or otherwise address the alleged defect in the plea in district court before any appeal.
On April 28, 2021, Davenport police detectives were conducting surveillance at an apartment on Emerald Drive following a gang-related homicide. The detectives observed a suspect leave the apartment, meet briefly with the occupants of an older model Cadillac sedan at a nearby gas station, and return to the apartment. A detective in an unmarked vehicle tailed the sedan as it drove off and observed the driver make an illegal turn. A marked patrol car then initiated a traffic stop. A man later identified as John Eddie Hanes III exited the passenger front seat door and fled on foot. A backseat passenger also fled on foot. Police arrested both men nearby and detained the driver and another occupant in the sedan. Police found a loaded handgun in a bag on the front seat of the passenger side of the vehicle where Hanes had been seated and a loaded rifle with a pistol grip on the rear seat floor.
Police determined that Hanes and other men in the sedan were affiliated with a local street gang known as the Mad Max Gang (MMG). Hanes had previously been convicted of third-degree burglary, a class "D" felony, in 2018, and had multiple prior juvenile adjudications for burglary, possession of firearms by a felon, theft, and assault. On June 10, the State charged Hanes by trial information with one count of criminal gang participation in violation of Iowa Code sections 703.1, 706.1, 706.3, and 723A.2 (2021), a class "D" felony, and a second count of possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of section 724.26(1), a class "D" felony.
On July 9, Hanes entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to criminal gang participation in exchange for dismissal of the felon-in-possession count. The written plea agreement identified an additional sentencing concession: The same day, as permitted by COVID-19 supervisory orders, a written plea of guilty was filed, signed by defense counsel, and signed and initialed by Hanes.2 He "expressly waive[d] [his] right to be present and participate in an in-court plea colloquy." The written plea stated in part:
Hanes placed his initials next to his admission typed in paragraph 8. Paragraph 9 stated, "I accept the minutes of testimony as substantially true as to the elements of these charges." The minutes recounted the facts set forth above.
On July 12, the district court entered a written order accepting Hanes's guilty plea. The order noted Hanes The court expressly advised Hanes of the requirement to file a motion in arrest of judgment in order to appeal his guilty plea. The order stated:
Hanes never filed a motion in arrest of judgment.
On August 20, the court conducted a virtual sentencing hearing by Zoom pursuant to the then-existing COVID-19 supervisory orders. Hanes and his attorney participated remotely by video. The following colloquy ensued:
The court offered Hanes the option of continuing the hearing so he could attend in person; Hanes elected to proceed remotely by Zoom. The court noted that Hanes was "deemed inappropriate for RCF" due to his assault on a female staffer in RCF, which made it an "open plea." Hanes and his counsel still declined to withdraw his guilty plea. The prosecutor recommended incarceration. Defense counsel argued for a suspended sentence and probation. The court ultimately imposed a prison sentence of up to five years for criminal gang participation "because of Mr. Hanes[’s] disturbing and significant criminal history even at his young age and for purposes of protection of the community." Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court dismissed the felon-in-possession charge, another class "D" felony. Three days later, Hanes filed a notice of appeal.
On appeal, Hanes argues his conviction and guilty plea should be vacated because his plea lacked a factual basis. Specifically, he argues he cannot "aid and abet" his own possession of a firearm and that the district court should have rejected his plea on the court's own motion. The State moved to dismiss the appeal on grounds Hanes never filed a motion in arrest of judgment as required by rule 2.24(3)(a ) and Treptow . On the merits, the State argues a factual basis exists based on Hanes's admissions and because Iowa law allows an aider and abettor to be charged as a principal, citing State v. El-Amin , 952 N.W.2d 134, 139 (Iowa 2020). We ordered the State's motion submitted with the appeal and retained the case.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rutherford
...so would eviscerate rule 2.24(3)(a)'s express prohibition on appeals where the defendant has failed to file a motion in arrest of judgment." Id. The same holds true of district court's independent obligation under rule 2.8(2)(b) to ensure a factual basis exists. While rule 2.8(2) imposes an......
-
State v. Grant
...his plea, he does not challenge the adequacy of the advisory, and he did not file a motion in arrest of judgment. See State v. Hanes, 981 N.W.2d 454, 462 (Iowa 2022) ("Because Hanes failed to file a motion in arrest judgment, he cannot establish good cause to pursue this direct appeal from ......
-
State v. Dock
...him to challenge his guilty plea on direct appeal without first filing a motion in arrest of judgment in district court." Id. at 461. Hanes is controlling. Because Dock failed file a motion in arrest of judgment, he cannot establish good cause to pursue a direct appeal from his plea as a ma......
-
Wickam v. State
...assistance of counsel for failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment, he abandoned that argument on appeal. See State v. Hanes, 981 N.W.2d 454, 461 (Iowa 2022) (highlighting applicant's access to PCR proceedings alleging constitutionally deficient advice of counsel in pleading guilty an......