IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 20–1571 Submitted January 20, 2022—Filed February 25, 2022 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY MICHAEL BASQUIN, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Alan T. Heavens (hearings); Richard D. Stochl (sentencing), Judges. Defendant appeals from guilty-plea based conviction on class “C” felony, challenging validity of his written plea of guilty. AFFIRMED. Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Rachel C. Regenold, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 2 WATERMAN, Justice. This appeal presents a frontal attack on the validity of a key provision in our supervisory orders promulgated in response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. The defendant, represented by counsel, signed and entered his written plea of guilty to a class “C” felony. He brings this direct appeal challenging the validity of that plea. He argues that the rules of criminal procedure, our precedent, and due process require an in-person plea colloquy in open court and that our supervisory orders temporarily allowing written pleas violate due process and separation of powers. We adopted these supervisory orders as a health and safety measure during the pandemic, and it is worth noting that attorneys in the Office of the State Appellate Defender, which represents the defendant, have often asked our court during the pandemic to be excused from appearing in person before our court for similar health and safety reasons. The State argues the appeal should be dismissed because the defendant cannot establish the requisite good cause to proceed under Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3). On the merits, the State argues that our court’s constitutional and inherent authority allowed us to permit written guilty pleas to felonies during the pandemic, that our supervisory orders did not violate due process or the separation of powers, and that we should affirm his plea-based conviction. We retained the appeal to decide those questions. On our review, we hold the defendant meets the good cause requirement by presenting questions of first impression as to the validity of our supervisory 3 orders and his written guilty plea to a felony. We uphold our supervisory orders as lawful exercises of our constitutional and inherent authority during the pandemic. We reject his due process and separation of powers challenges to his written plea, and we affirm his conviction. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. On June 6, 2019, Fayette Police Department Chief Benjamin Davis received a phone call at 10:45 p.m. from a former tenant of a rental townhouse who was awaiting the return of his security deposit and came back to see if the house cleaner was doing her job. He looked through a window and saw her with a man inside weighing a “mound of cocaine.” Chief Davis called the owners who said they had a house cleaner but no one should be inside the townhouse at that hour. Police arrived to find two …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals