IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 21-0317 Filed August 3, 2022 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TROY LEE PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul D. Scott, Judge. Troy Patrick appeals his convictions for delivery of a controlled substance and failure to possess a tax stamp. AFFIRMED. Martha Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Greer, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Vogel, S.J.* *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2022). 2 VOGEL, Senior Judge. Troy Patrick pled guilty to and was convicted of four charges: (1) delivery of methamphetamine as a habitual offender; (2) delivery of cocaine salt; (3) delivery of methamphetamine; and (4) failure to possess a tax stamp. See Iowa Code §§ 124.401(1)(c), 453B.3, 453B.12 (2017). He appeals, arguing his plea was defective because the district court did not advise him of his right to compulsory process. The State begins by arguing Patrick lacks good cause to appeal. See id.§ 814.6(1)(a) (2021) (stating a defendant has no right to appeal from a guilty plea to other than a class “A” felony unless “the defendant establishes good cause”). Patrick argues he established good cause because the district court did not adequately advise him he must file a motion in arrest of judgment in order to challenge his guilty plea on appeal. A defendant typically must file a motion in arrest of judgment in order to challenge defects in a guilty plea on appeal. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a). However, our supreme court has long recognized a defendant may challenge a guilty plea without filing a motion in arrest of judgment if the district court did not “ensure the defendant understands the necessity of filing a motion to challenge a guilty plea and the consequences of a failure to do so.” State v. Loye, 670 N.W.2d 141, 150 (Iowa 2003); see also State v. West, 326 N.W.2d 316, 317 (Iowa 1982) (reaching the merits of the defendant’s guilty-plea challenge “because the trial court did not advise him pursuant to [current rule 2.8(2)(d)] that a failure to challenge the plea by motion in arrest of judgment operates as such a bar”). 3 The good-cause requirement was enacted in 2019. See 2019 Iowa Acts ch. 140, § 28 (enacting section 814.6(1)(a)(3)); see also State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020) (finding the good-cause requirement applies to a judgment and sentence entered on or after July 1, 2019). The State argues the 2019 legislation severely restricted a defendant’s ability to appeal a guilty plea and the district court’s alleged failure to adequately advise the defendant of the need to file a motion in arrest of judgment is not “good cause” to appeal. However, the supreme court has twice recently recognized a defendant may still appeal a guilty plea without filing a motion in arrest of judgment …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals