State v. Hildebrant, 84-1313

• Decision Date: 13 May 1987
• Docket Number: No. 84-1313,84-1313
• Citation: 405 N.W.2d 839
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee HILDEBRANT, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 839

405 N.W.2d 839

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Lawrence Lee HILDEBRANT, Appellant.

No. 84-1313.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 13, 1987.

Harlan H. Giese, Jr., Bettendorf, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Bradley V. Black, Asst. Atty. Gen., and William E. Davis, Co. Atty., for appellee.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and HARRIS, SCHULTZ, CARTER, and NEUMAN, JJ.

REYNOLDSON, Chief Justice.

Lawrence Lee Hildebrant appeals his conviction for violating Iowa Code section 709.12(1) (1983), indecent contact with a child. We affirm.

Hildebrant initially pleaded not guilty to the charge. He and the State later entered into a plea agreement in which Hildebrant agreed to plead guilty to the charge. In return, the State agreed to make no recommendation with respect to sentencing.

June 27, 1984, following a hearing conducted pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(2)(b), district court accepted Hildebrant's guilty plea. The latter filed no motion in arrest of judgment, and on August 9, 1984, the district court imposed sentence. After limited remand for correction of sentence, Hildebrant's appeal on the merits is before us.

I. Hildebrant makes two substantive challenges to district court's acceptance of his guilty plea. First, he asserts district court failed to assure he understood the nature of the charge. Second, Hildebrant contends district court failed to establish an adequate factual basis for his guilty plea. Such failures, if shown, would violate Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 8(2)(b) and would require reversal of the conviction.

Before addressing these issues, however, we must determine whether Hildebrant has waived his right to challenge district court's acceptance of his guilty plea. After accepting the plea, district court warned Hildebrant that any challenge to its acceptance of his guilty plea was required to be raised by timely motion in arrest of judgment. Iowa R.Crim.P. 8(2)(d), 23(3)(a)-(b). District court also cautioned Hildebrant his failure to so move would preclude him from challenging the plea proceedings on appeal. Iowa R.Crim.P. 8(2)(d), 23(3)(a).

Despite district court's clear and correct statement of the law, State v. Worley, 297 N.W.2d 368, 370 (Iowa 1980), Hildebrant filed no motion raising the two issues he now asserts in this appeal. We therefore may not consider these issues unless Hildebrant's failure to pursue them in district court resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Schoelerman, 315 N.W.2d 67, 71 (Iowa 1982).

Recognizing his dilemma, Hildebrant asserts such a claim in this appeal. Although ordinarily hesitant to address such claims on direct appeal, State v. Risdal, 404 N.W.2d 130, 131 (Iowa 1987); State v. Rawlings, 402 N.W.2d 406, 408 (Iowa 1987), we have the obligation to determine whether the issue should be disposed of on direct appeal or should be reserved for postconviction proceedings, State v. White, 337 N.W.2d 517, 519-20 (Iowa 1983). In this case, we are convinced the record is sufficiently developed to consider on direct appeal Hildebrant's claim of ineffective assistance.

II. To establish his ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Hildebrant has the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and prejudice resulted therefrom. State v. Risdal, 404 N.W.2d 130, 131 (Iowa 1987); State v. Yaw, 398 N.W.2d 803, 805-06 (Iowa 1987). Because Hildebrant's claim is of constitutional dimension, our review is de novo. Taylor v. State, 352 N.W.2d 683, 684 (Iowa 1984).

In proving the first prong of this test, Hildebrant must overcome the strong presumption counsel's actions were reasonable under the circumstances and fell within the normal range of professional competency. Id. at 685. To demonstrate prejudice, Hildebrant must prove there is a " 'reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.' " Id. at 685 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 694, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2068, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, 698 (1984)). If it is more efficient to dispose of an ineffective assistance claim by looking first to the question of prejudice, we will do so. Gering v. State, 382 N.W.2d 151, 154 (Iowa 1986) (citing Taylor, 352 N.W.2d at 685). With these principles in mind we turn to Hildebrant's specific claim.

At the plea hearing district court, with one possible exception now asserted, thoroughly explored Hildebrant's understanding of the charge, explained in detail the elements of the charge and the consequences of a guilty plea, and established a factual basis for...