IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 20-0025 Filed October 20, 2021 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DIEUDONNE MANIRABARUTA, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns, Judge. Dieudonne Manirabaruta appeals his conviction, following an Alford plea, of second-degree theft. APPEAL DISMISSED. Peter Stiefel, Victor (until withdrawal) and Shawn McCullough of Powell and McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Ahlers, JJ. 2 MULLINS, Presiding Judge. I. Background On June 14, 2019, Dieudonne Manirabaruta was criminally charged. On August 16, Manirabaruta, while represented by counsel, entered guilty pleas to charges of second-degree theft and attempted eluding, which the court accepted. He was advised of his obligation to file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his pleas within forty-five days, but in any event, not less than five days prior to sentencing, and that failing to do so would preclude a right to challenge his pleas on appeal. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a), (b). The court scheduled sentencing to occur on October 15. On September 17, Manirabaruta filed a pro se letter with the court requesting new counsel. Following a hearing three days later, the court granted the request and appointed new counsel. The court specifically directed Manirabaruta to contact his new attorney, who was representing Manirabaruta in other cases, with any questions or concerns. Ten days remained for Manirabaruta to file a timely motion in arrest of judgment. Then, on October 15, the day of sentencing and more than forty-five days after tendering his pleas, Manirabaruta— through counsel—moved to withdraw his plea and in arrest of judgment as to the theft charge. He asserted he was actually innocent, his first attorney misadvised him of the immigration consequences of his plea, and his plea lacked a factual basis. 3 At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel essentially requested the court to consider the untimely motion based on good cause.1 The court read rule 2.24(3) to not provide for consideration of an untimely motion in arrest of judgment based on good cause.2 The court found the motion to be untimely and declined to consider it. Thereafter, counsel pointed out there may have been an oral indication by Manirabaruta at the hearing on motion for new counsel “that could suffice as an . . . oral motion to have an arrest of judgement and that . . . would have been plenty timely.” The court responded Manirabaruta could not file his own motion in arrest of judgment when he was represented by counsel. See Iowa Code § 814.6A(1) (Supp. 2019). The court also declined to consider Manirabaruta’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The court proceeded to sentencing and entered judgment and sentence the same day. The next day, the court filed a written order detailing its decision to not consider the motions in arrest of judgment and to withdraw the guilty plea. Two days later, …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals