Toogood v. Brewer

Decision Date17 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 54550,54550
Citation187 N.W.2d 748
PartiesDavid G. TOOGOOD, Appellant, v. Lou V. BREWER, Warden Iowa State Penitentiary, Appellee.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

George E. Wright, Fort Madison, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard Winders, Asst. Atty. Gen., and E. W. Henke, County Atty., Charles City, for appellee.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

On April 14, 1970 David G. Toogood, petitioned the Lee County District Court for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged his restraint in the Iowa State Penitentiary, under the commitment from Floyd County, was illegal. After a full evidentiary hearing the trial court on June 30, 1970 denied and dismissed his application.

On this appeal petitioner asserts the trial court erred in denying the writ because (1) he had not been given effective assistance of counsel on his appeal following his plea of guilty to false drawing and uttering a check and (2) his guilty plea was coerced and involuntary in that he had been promised by his court appointed attorney he would receive a bench parole or a jail sentence.

I. We first consider his second assignment of error. The transcript of this case includes petitioner's testimony and that of his lower court and appeal attorney, Jack Frye. The transcript of the proceedings in the Floyd County District Court before Judge B. C. Sullivan when petitioner entered a plea of guilty on March 7 and when he was sentenced March 11, 1969 was taken as an exhibit.

Petitioner testified he pleaded guilty because his attorney Mr. Frye stated he would 'try to get him a jail term or a bench parole * * * he supposed he would get a bench parole or county jail time * * * more or less assured him he would get a bench parole or a county jail sentence not to exceed one year'.

Mr. Frye testified he originally told petitioner if he could make restitution he might have an opportunity to make a bargain for county jail time but that after petitioner wrote more had checks while out on bond he then told petitioner it was highly improbable he would receive a parole or jail sentence and that he has abandoned any hope for a parole or jail sentence. Thereafter petitioner entered the guilty plea.

When petitioner tendered the guilty plea the trial court carefully met and complied with each of the requirements set out in State v. Lindsey, Iowa, 171 N.W.2d 859, 861, to determine whether the plea was voluntary. It would be difficult to outline a more appropriate inquiry and informative process. It includes:

'THE COURT: Have any threats or promises been made to you to induce you to enter a plea in this case?

'MR. TOOGOOD: No.

'THE COURT: You understand the plea is your own?

'MR. TOOGOOD: Yes.

'THE COURT: And you understand, I am not anticipating what your plea will be, but in the event you enter a plea of guilty, you are admitting everything that is in that Information, you understand that?

'MR. TOOGOOD: Yes.

'THE COURT: And you understand the Court would not even permit you to plead guilty to anything that you denied. In other words, I wouldn't accept a plea just to get the thing over with, you understand that?

'MR. TOOGOOD: Yes.' The plea of guilty was then entered personally by petitioner and accepted by the trial court.

On March 11 prior to sentencing the trial judge informed petitioner he would permit withdrawal of the guilty plea if so desired but again petitioner stated he was 'guilty'.

II. After incarceration petitioner expressed a desire to appeal and at his request Mr. Frye was appointed appeal attorney. Mr. Frye prepared, served and filed a timely proper notice of appeal. He obtained a transcript of the proceedings in the lower court and visited petitioner in the penitentiary in an attempt to determine some basis for appeal. Petitioner claimed the check was to have been held and not sent to the bank. He had no account in any bank.

We have repeatedly held a guilty plea is not only a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Andrew B., In re
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • November 30, 1995
    ...appellate court's pre-Anders review of "the entire record ... [p] ... substantially complied with Anders "].) IOWA: In Toogood v. Brewer (Iowa 1971) 187 N.W.2d 748, 750, the court explained Iowa has adopted a rule of appellate procedure "based on the holding in Anders." It provides for noti......
  • State v. Jaeger
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • January 19, 1977
    ...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 ......
  • Henrichs v. Hildreth
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 23, 1973
    ...our review is limited to errors assigned, not de novo. See Hill v. Houck, 195 N.W.2d 692, 694 (Iowa 1972). See also Toogood v. Brewer, 187 N.W.2d 748, 750 (Iowa 1971). II. Next, as this court said in Cole v. City of Osceola, 179 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Iowa 'It is well settled that when the consti......
  • Snyder v. State, 59766
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1978
    ...ineffective assistance of counsel. This case is like the situation presented in Walker v. Brewer, Iowa, 189 N.W.2d 605 and Toogood v. Brewer, Iowa, 187 N.W.2d 748, where we rejected similar "ineffective assistance of counsel" III. We now proceed to petitioner's contention that Attorney Mell......
  • 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