State v. Young

• Decision Date: 16 July 1963
• Docket Number: No. 50849,50849
• Citation: State v. Young, 122 N.W.2d 847, 255 Iowa 447 (Iowa 1963)
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Floyd YOUNG, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 847

122 N.W.2d 847

255 Iowa 447

STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Floyd YOUNG, Appellant.

No. 50849.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July 16, 1963.

Anthony M. Critelli, Des Moines, for appellant.

Evan Hultman, Atty. Gen., William J. Yost, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry Perkins, Jr., Polk County Atty., for appellee.

STUART, Justice.

The defendant was arrested May 21, 1962 and entered a plea of guilty to the charge of incest on a county attorney's information June 8, 1962. Time for sentence was waived and judgment was entered the same date sentencing him to 25 years in the State penitentiary. Defendant does not question the formal regularity of the proceedings.

On July 7, 1962 the defendant while confined in the penitentiary at Ft. Madison acting pro se, served and filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered June 8. On August 25, defendant filed an application for the appointment of counsel to assist in the appeal, which application was set down for hearing September 6, 1962. On the 4th day of September while the application was pending, the defendant pro se, filed a 'Motion to Arrest and Vacate Judgment' alleging the trial court did not have jurisdiction at the time of judgment as he had been denied due process and equal protection of the law.

On September 6, 1962 defendant's present counsel was appointed to represent him. The Motion to Arrest and Vacate Judgment was amended orally to specify that defendant had been deprived of prescribed medication while in jail and was not in full control of his mental and physical abilities at the time he entered his plea and did not realize the full import of his action. By further oral amendment defendant complained he did not have the opportunity to confer at length with his counsel and was not in full possession of his faculties when he did confer with him.

Evidence was taken on the issues raised in the Motion to Arrest and Vacate Judgment. The trial court, which was the same judge who accepted the plea of guilty, overruled the motion. No other notice of appeal was served but the record contains the evidence introduced at the hearing on the motion and the case is presented to this court by the defendant on the trial court's ruling on the motion.

I. The state claims the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion as no further proceedings can be inaugurated in the trial court after an appeal has been taken. We agree. The case of State v. McKillop, 241 Iowa 988, 42 N.W.2d 381; Cert. den. 340 U.S. 932, 71 S.Ct. 494, 95 L.Ed. 672, cited by the state is directly in point.

In the McKillop case the defendant entered a plea of guilty on a county attorney's information June 16, 1949. Time for sentence was waived and judgment of conviction was entered the same day. A Notice of Appeal signed by attorneys was served and filed June 25, 1949. On September 21, 1949 defendant through his attorneys filed a 'Motion to set aside judgment, to withdraw the plea of guilty, to enter a plea of not guilty, and for a new trial' on the grounds he had been deprived of due process and various constitutional rights and had been induced to plead guilty by misrepresentations and duress.

The statements of the court in the McKillop case are applicable to the instant case. We said:

'No appeal has been taken from this order overruling defendant's motion. It was made October 3, 1949. The only appeal taken was the one of June 25, 1949 (over three months earlier), when there had been no objection to the procedure, nor any attack made on the validity of the judgment appealed from. The printed 'Record' (abstract) filed November 25 however sets out the subsequent motion and attached affidavits and the trial court's informal ruling thereon.

'I. It is manifest there is nothing here upon which we can pass. The judgment of conviction appealed from was unimpeached and upon its face unimpeachable when rendered. The record to that date and to date of appeal revealed no error and no complaint of any ruling leading up to the final judgment. The motion attacking it was made practically three months after...