State v. Maas

Decision Date21 September 2022
Docket Number22-0298
PartiesSTATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KEVIN WILLIAM MAAS, Defendant-Appellant
CourtIowa Court of Appeals

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Roger L Sailer, Judge.

A defendant challenges his guilty plea based on an alleged defect in the plea proceedings.

Christopher J. Roth of Roth Weinstein, LLC, Omaha, Nebraska for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.

CHICCHELLY, JUDGE

Kevin Maas appeals his conviction based on an alleged defect in his plea proceedings. He contends the record shows no evidence that he was advised of his constitutional rights before entering a guilty plea. Because we find ourselves without jurisdiction, we dismiss his appeal.

On February 9, 2022, Maas entered a written guilty plea to a class "D" felony. As permitted by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8 and the Iowa Supreme Court's COVID-19 protocol then in effect, Maas waived personal appearance at his guilty plea and sentencing hearings. The district court accepted Maas's guilty plea and entered judgment and sentence on February 11. Maas filed a timely notice of appeal, alleging his plea should be set aside for failure to substantially comply with Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b).

"We ordinarily review challenges to guilty pleas for correction of errors at law." State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680 (Iowa 2016). However, "we utilize a substantial compliance standard to determine whether a plea crosses the rule 2.8(2)(b)(2) threshold." Id. at 682. Therefore, we will apply this standard to the remaining subparagraphs of rule 2.8(2)(b) at issue in this appeal.

The parties agree that the written plea filed with the court, which was obviously missing two pages, did not satisfy the requirements of rule 2.8(2)(b). Despite this concession, the State contends Maas's appeal should fail because he failed to preserve error, and even if error is preserved, he would not be entitled to relief. To preserve error, Maas needed to file a motion in arrest of judgment with the district court. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a) ("A defendant's failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding by motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the defendant's right to assert such challenge on appeal."). Maas contends that his failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment, which was a right he explicitly waived in his plea, should be excused because he established good cause to appeal. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2021) (permitting appeal from a conviction where the defendant pled guilty if good cause is established). Good cause means a "legally sufficient reason," which "is a ground that potentially would afford the defendant relief." State v. Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140, 149 (Iowa 2021). Maas presented no such ground.

Iowa Code section 814.29 stipulates: "If a defendant challenges a guilty plea based on an alleged defect in the plea...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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