State v. Jaeger, No. 58918

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtHeard by MOORE; MOORE; LeGRAND
Citation249 N.W.2d 688
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Fredrick Morse JAEGER, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 58918
Decision Date19 January 1977

Page 688

249 N.W.2d 688
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Fredrick Morse JAEGER, Appellant.
No. 58918.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Jan. 19, 1977.

Page 689

Lawrence W. Zeringue, Burlington, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Michael W. Coriden, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Steven S. Hoth, County Atty., for appellee.

Heard by MOORE, C.J., and MASON, LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP and HARRIS, JJ.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

Defendant appeals from his guilty plea conviction of unlawful use of telephone in violation of Code section 714.37 which provides:

'It shall be unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to telephone another and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict injury or physical harm to the person or property of any person. It shall also be unlawful to attempt to extort money or other thing of value from any person, or to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls were received.'

The questions presented are--(1) Does a plea of guilty entered subsequent to defendant's demurrer waive all alleged constitutional errors in the charging statute?, and (2) Is section 714.37 unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face so as to charge no offense?

Defendant first demurred to the County Attorney's Information which charged him with unlawful use of a telephone in violation of Code section 714.37. He alleged the statute was facially both unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The lower court's well-reasoned holding and order overruled defendant's demurrer. Thereafter defendant, with counsel, voluntarily and understandingly entered a plea of guilty as charged. In response to the court's interrogation defendant admitted he telephoned Lowell Bauer, a Burlington City Councilman, on April 6, 1975, at 2:20 A.M. and stated to him: 'Hello you dumb fucker. What do you think about the children of Viet Nam?' The call was immediately traced as prior similar calls had caused the telephone company to make the necessary attachments to Bauer's telephone.

I. This court has on numerous occasions stated:

'A plea of guilty freely and voluntarily entered in open court is a waiver of trial

Page 690

and defense and a submission without contest. It waives all defenses except that the indictment or information charges no offense, and, of course, the right to challenge the plea itself.'

State v. Everhart, Iowa, 243 N.W.2d 574, 575 (guilty plea waived challenge to venue); Zacek v. Brewer, Iowa, 241 N.W.2d 41, 50; (guilty plea was set aside because involuntary); State v. Sudduth, Iowa, 224 N.W.2d 19, 21 (guilty plea waived error concerning written confession); State v. Horstman, Iowa, 218 N.W.2d 604, 605 (guilty plea waived defendant's claim he was charged under the wrong statute); State v. McGee, Iowa, 211 N.W.2d 267, 268 (defendant foreclosed from complaint as to time lapse between information and plea); State v. Burtlow, Iowa, 210 N.W.2d 438, 439 (Miranda issue waived by guilty plea); State v. Culbert, Iowa, 188 N.W.2d 325, 326 (defendant waived confession issue by pleading guilty); Toogood v. Brewer, Iowa, 187 N.W.2d 748, 750 (defendant waived factual dispute by pleading guilty); State v. Brace, Iowa, 181 N.W.2d 244, 246 (defendant waived any potential defense regarding time lapse in being taken before a magistrate); State v. Jackson, Iowa, 173 N.W.2d 567, 570 (objections to identification procedure are waived by guilty plea).

In 25 Drake L.Rev. 360, 'Guilty Pleas' (published in 1975) our opinions are carefully and thoroughly discussed and analyzed. At page 371 the writer concludes: 'When an Iowa defendant pleads guilty, he may as well forget about supposed 'irregularities' that preceded it.'

Here the challenge goes beyond a claimed irregularity. Argument is made that the 'information charges no offense' because of claimed unconstitutionality of the statute. Thus this court is faced with a question of first impression. Therefore we may consider cases from other jurisdictions.

In Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 30, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 2103, 40 L.Ed.2d 628, 636 (1974) the court held a defendant's claim of double jeopardy was not waived by a plea of guilty because the constitutional claim 'went to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him.' The court noted the right asserted was 'the right not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge.'

Blackledge was followed in Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 63, 96 S.Ct. 241, 242, 46...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 practice notes
  • State v. Kipf, No. 88-974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • January 19, 1990
    ...serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific content. See, State v. Crelly, 313 N.W.2d 455 (S.D.1981); State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1977); State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979); Baker v. State, 16 Ariz.App. 463, 494 P.2d 68 (1972); State v. Starsky, 106 Ariz. 329, 475 P.......
  • State v. Conner, No. 62499
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 21, 1980
    ...the heavy burden of establishing that the statute clearly, palpably, and without doubt infringes constitutional rights. State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 690-91 (Iowa Defendant argues that the statute deprives him of due process because it is vague and overbroad. But in the same act a "publi......
  • State v. Gattis, No. 9176
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 26, 1986
    ...to proscription but also sweeps within its ambit those actions ordinarily deemed to be constitutionally protected. State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1977). See State ex rel. Gonzales v. Manzagol, 87 N.M. 230, 531 P.2d 1203 (1975). A statute is unconstitutionally vague, and thus offends ......
  • People v. Kucharski
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 29, 2013
    ...see also id. (citing State v. Crelly, 313 N.W.2d 455, 457 (S.D.1981), State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86, 92 (Fla.1979), State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 691 (Iowa 1977), and Baker v. State, 16 Ariz.App. 463, 494 P.2d 68, 70–71 (1972)). ¶ 31 In the present case, the electronic harassment statute......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 cases
  • State v. Kipf, No. 88-974
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Nebraska
    • January 19, 1990
    ...serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific content. See, State v. Crelly, 313 N.W.2d 455 (S.D.1981); State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1977); State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86 (Fla.1979); Baker v. State, 16 Ariz.App. 463, 494 P.2d 68 (1972); State v. Starsky, 106 Ariz. 329, 475 P.......
  • State v. Conner, No. 62499
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • May 21, 1980
    ...the heavy burden of establishing that the statute clearly, palpably, and without doubt infringes constitutional rights. State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 690-91 (Iowa Defendant argues that the statute deprives him of due process because it is vague and overbroad. But in the same act a "publi......
  • State v. Gattis, No. 9176
    • United States
    • New Mexico Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 26, 1986
    ...to proscription but also sweeps within its ambit those actions ordinarily deemed to be constitutionally protected. State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688 (Iowa 1977). See State ex rel. Gonzales v. Manzagol, 87 N.M. 230, 531 P.2d 1203 (1975). A statute is unconstitutionally vague, and thus offends ......
  • People v. Kucharski
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 29, 2013
    ...see also id. (citing State v. Crelly, 313 N.W.2d 455, 457 (S.D.1981), State v. Keaton, 371 So.2d 86, 92 (Fla.1979), State v. Jaeger, 249 N.W.2d 688, 691 (Iowa 1977), and Baker v. State, 16 Ariz.App. 463, 494 P.2d 68, 70–71 (1972)). ¶ 31 In the present case, the electronic harassment statute......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT