State of Iowa v. Cody Michael Bertram ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1883
Filed September 14, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CODY MICHAEL BERTRAM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Peter B. Newell,
District Associate Judge.
Cody Bertram appeals following his plea of guilty to second-degree theft.
AFFIRMED.
Harry L. Haywood III of Haywood Law Office, Eldora, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Cody Bertram appeals following his guilty plea to theft in the second
degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 714.2(2) (2015). He contends the
district court abused its discretion in failing to allow him to withdraw his plea upon
claims of improper or late disclosure of “key evidence” by the State. He argues
he found out the identity of the informant who provided information supporting the
warrant shortly before entering his plea. Finding no abuse of discretion, we
affirm.
On March 16, 2015, a Waterloo resident reported the theft of a trailer and
two snowmobiles from his home. On April 26, deputies executed a search
warrant at the home of Charles Schrage and found one of the stolen
snowmobiles. Schrage reported that Bertram had shown him a bill of sale for the
blue snowmobile. Zachary Kastner, who was also present at the search,
reported that Bertram had shown him a photo of a red snowmobile and that
Bertram had traded the snowmobile to Rodney Robinson for a car. Police
recovered the red snowmobile and trailer from Robinson, who confirmed Bertram
had traded them for Robinson’s Pontiac Bonneville in mid-March.
On June 17, 2015, Bertram was charged with second-degree theft.
Bertram entered a written guilty plea on August 26, 2015.
On October 6, 2015, Bertram filed a motion in arrest of judgment,
challenging the guilty plea on the grounds that it was entered without informed
consent and in violation of his constitutional rights. He also requested a
suppression hearing to challenge the search warrant, claiming it lacked probable
cause. The district court denied the motion and entered judgment and sentence.
3
On appeal, Bertram contends that had he and his attorney known the
identity of the informant providing the basis of the original warrant “sufficiently in
advance of the plea hearing to discuss the matter, they would have filed a motion
to suppress all of the evidence” because the informant was “an unreliable
person.” He contends that when he had “time to discuss the matter,” he learned
it was unlikely the informant would testify, and he then sought to change his plea.
“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.” State v.
Smith, 753 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 2008). Where a defendant enters a plea with
full knowledge of the charge against him and of his rights and the consequences
of a plea of guilty “understandably and without fear or persuasion,” the court does
not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow withdrawal of that plea. State v.
Speed, 573 N.W.2d 594, 596 (Iowa 1998) (quoting State v. Ramirez, 400 N.W.2d
586, 588 (Iowa 1987)).
Bertram failed to prove any deficiency in his plea requiring arrest of
judgment. The trial court complied with the procedures required. See Iowa R.
Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b). Bertram does not challenge the district court’s guilty plea
colloquy. At the August 26, 2015 plea hearing, the court ensured Bertram
understood the potential penalties, the nature of the charge, and the trial rights
being waived. The court also established a factual basis for the plea. In his
written plea, Bertram admitted that he exercised control over property he knew
was stolen and that the property’s value exceeded $1000.
Bertram’s asserted suppression challenge did not require an arrest of
judgment. The search warrant pertained to the farm of Charles Schrage. There
4
is nothing in this record that would indicate Bertram had a reasonable
expectation of privacy in another person’s shed to challenge the search. See
State v. Lowe, 812 N.W.2d 554, 567 (Iowa 2012) (“In order to object to the
evidence on constitutional grounds, [a defendant] must show that his own
constitutional rights, under either the state or federal constitutions, have been
violated.”). More importantly, Bertram waived any error by pleading guilty. State
v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009) (“It is well established that a
defendant’s guilty plea waives all defenses and objections which are not intrinsic
to the plea.”). Bertram does not claim plea counsel was ineffective.1 We affirm
the conviction.
AFFIRMED.
1
See Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 793 (Iowa 2011) (“[T]he distinction between
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims that do not survive a guilty plea as illustrated in
Speed and those that do survive is the existence of a showing that the pre-plea
ineffective assistance of counsel rendered the plea involuntary or unintelligent. The
component of the claim involving the voluntariness of the plea is largely tied to the
prejudice element of all ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims. Id. This element
means criminal defendants who seek postconviction relief after pleading guilty must
establish the guilty plea would not have been entered but for the breach of duty by
counsel.”).