State of Iowa v. Brandon Christian Elliott , 919 N.W.2d 637 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0368
Filed May 16, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRANDON CHRISTIAN ELLIOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Patrick R. Grady,
Judge.
The defendant challenges his conviction for assault causing bodily injury, in
violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(5) (2015). AFFIRMED.
Elizabeth Araguas and Jonathon Muñoz of Nidey, Erdahl, Fisher, Pilkington
& Meier PLC, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Brandon Elliott pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily injury, in violation of
Iowa Code section 708.2A(5) (2015). Elliott timely filed a motion in arrest of
judgment, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground his guilty plea was not
voluntary and lacked a factual basis. Specifically, Elliott contended he felt pressure
to plead guilty because he was going to be arrested on an outstanding warrant and
because he did not want his daughter to have to testify at trial. After receiving the
defendant’s testimony on the motion, the district court denied the motion in arrest
of judgment and sentenced the defendant. Elliott challenges the denial of his
motion in this appeal.
We review a district court’s grant or denial of a motion in arrest of judgment
and a motion to withdraw a plea for abuse of discretion. See State v. Smith, 753
N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2008). An abuse of discretion will only be found where the
trial court’s discretion was exercised on clearly untenable or unreasonable
grounds. See id. Here, the district court denied the motion for the following
reasons:
The Court finds that these matters that were the subject of
negotiation are the normal types of matters that the parties have to
weigh in deciding whether to go to trial or whether to enter a plea
agreement or in some cases whether to dismiss a prosecution. That
includes the issue of whether a child might have to testify at a trial or
whether a Defendant may have to forego short-term – or expected
to undergo short-term incarceration due to intervening events
between the initial cause and the trial. Though things happened very
quickly, it appears the Defendant was aware of what his options were
and he told the judge at the time of the plea proceeding that he was
satisfied with counsel, that he was making the plea voluntarily, and
he apparently laid a sufficient factual basis for Judge Koehler to
accept the plea.
3
The Court does not find that there’s any legal basis to set the
guilty plea aside, and the Motion in Arrest of Judgment is therefore
denied.
We cannot conclude the district court abused its discretion in denying
Elliott’s motion in arrest of judgment. As noted by the district court, the defendant’s
claim is belied by the record. See State v. Wise, 708 N.W.2d 66, 71 (Iowa 2006)
(concluding the defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief on claim of
involuntariness where the claim was contrary to the plea record); see also Coates
v. State, No. 16-0324, 2017 WL 1088103, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2017)
(affirming denial of application for postconviction relief challenging voluntariness
of plea where claim was contradicted by the record); Adcock v. State, No. 09-0657,
2010 WL 446513, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2010) (affirming summary
disposition of voluntariness claim where claim was contrary to the record). The
fact the defendant felt some pressure to plead guilty due to the circumstances is
of no legal consequence. See State v. Speed, 573 N.W.2d 594, 597 (Iowa 1998)
(“When the law requires a plea of guilty to be entered freely and voluntarily, it does
not mean that an accused acts in the matter of his own free will. No doubt no
accused wants to be charged with crime, nor would he like to enter a plea of guilty
in any case.”). The plea colloquy and minutes of testimony establish a factual
basis for the plea, including a lack of justification for the assault.
AFFIRMED.