State v. Thompson, 59801
| Citation | 253 N.W.2d 608 |
| Decision Date | 25 May 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 59801,59801 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Darrell Darwin THOMPSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
John A. Pabst, Albia, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Sullins, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Michael G. Trier, County Atty., for appellee.
Heard by MOORE, C. J., and LeGRAND, UHLENHOPP, REYNOLDSON and HARRIS, JJ.
This appeal presents the question whether § 769.8, The Code, permits a full-time magistrate to approve a county attorney's information. We hold it does not, and we therefore reverse defendant's conviction with instructions that the trial court enter an order dismissing the information under which this prosecution took place.
I. On June 7, 1976, the county attorney of Jasper County filed an information accusing defendant of the crime of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage in violation of § 321.281, The Code, 1975. The information was submitted to and approved by A. C. Omer, a full-time magistrate in Jasper County.
Defendant filed a motion asking that the information be dismissed because it had not been approved by a district judge or district associate judge under § 769.8, which provides as follows:
His motion was overruled. He asked for a writ of certiorari to this court to test that decision. His petition was denied on condition he could raise the issue on appeal from a final adverse judgment. The matter is therefore properly before us.
Magistrate Omer is not a district judge. Neither is he an associate district judge. He is, rather, a full-time judicial magistrate serving pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 602, The Code. (See § 602.42 et seq.)
Although magistrates perform many judicial functions and although they have authority to do many of the things district and associate district judges may do, we recently held there are many distinctions in the several offices. In Warren County v. Judges of Fifth Judicial Dist., 243 N.W.2d 894, 902 (Iowa 1976) we said:
* * *.' Krohn v. Judicial Magistrate Appointing Com'n, 239 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 1976). He is not, however, a district judge. * * * "
We were concerned in Warren County only with district judges, but the same rationale applies to the distinction between associate district judges and magistrates.
The State cites us to a number of statutory enactments in which magistrates are accorded specific power to act to the same extent as district or associate district judges. That authority does not extend beyond the particular statute which grants it. The statute now before us (§ 769.8, The Code) is specific in requiring the approval of either a district judge or an associate district judge before a county attorney's information may be filed.
In statutory construction it is generally held a statute dealing specifically with a subject takes precedence over a general one on that same subject. Llewellyn v. Iowa State Commerce Comm'n, 200 N.W.2d 881, 883-884 (Iowa 1972); Shriver v. City of Jefferson, 190 N.W.2d 838, 840 (Iowa 1971); cf. Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Forst, 205 N.W.2d 692, 697 (Iowa 1973).
We deem Warren County dispositive of this issue. A magistrate has no authority to approve or disapprove a county attorney's information, and accordingly the information in the present case must be dismissed.
II. One other issue remains. Defendant filed a timely application for appointment of counsel claiming he was indigent, accompanied by an affidavit of his financial statement. See § 336B.2, The Code, 1975. After hearing, the application was denied and the court found defendant was able to provide counsel at his own expense. Later a second application met the same fate. (The first application was denied by Magistrate Mott, the second by Magistrate Omer.)
Our statute provides:
"If the defendant appears for arraignment without counsel, he must, before proceeding therewith, be informed by the court of his right thereto, and be asked if he desires counsel; and if he does, and is unable to employ any, the court must allow him to select or assign him counsel * * *." (§ 775.4)
"An attorney appointed by the court to defend any person charged with a crime in this state shall be entitled to a reasonable compensation to be decided in each case by the court, including such sum or sums as the court may determine are necessary for investigation in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buelow
...v. Holm, 233 Pa.Super. 281, 335 A.2d 713, 717 (1975) (failure to pay costs of prosecution because of indigency); State v. Thompson, 253 N.W.2d 608, 610 (Iowa 1977).3 There is some indication in the record that the trust was created to avoid tax liability on the operation of the 600 acre far......
-
State v. Hansen
...more specific of conflicting provisions. E. g., Berger v. General United Group, Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630, 638 (Iowa 1978); State v. Thompson, 253 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Iowa 1977). Rule 11 is clear and unambiguous as to the time constraints it would place upon motions to suppress. Rule 10(2) is consi......
-
State v. Yardley
...to obtain counsel without a substantial hardship to himself. Compare State v. Timmons, 218 Kan. 741, 545 P.2d 358 (1976); State v. Thompson, 253 N.W.2d 608 (Iowa 1977); State v. Radford, 202 Neb. 440, 276 N.W.2d 82 The appellant's second point is that his conviction must be reversed because......
-
State v. Bousman
...court discretion. 3 When a conflict such as has appeared here occurs, a specific statute governs over a general one. State v. Thompson, 253 N.W.2d 608, 609 (Iowa 1977). The final paragraph of section 4.13 can, by its own language, have application in non-criminal as well as criminal context......