State of Iowa v. Loren Patrick Cramblit ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0048
Filed October 25, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LOREN PATRICK CRAMBLIT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, William P. Kelly
(guilty plea) and Robert B. Hanson (sentencing), Judges.
Defendant appeals his conviction for criminal mischief in the third degree.
AFFIRMED.
William L. Kutmus and Trever T. Hook of Kutmus, Pennington & Hook,
P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Loren Cramblit appeals his conviction for criminal mischief in the third
degree. We find Cramblit has not preserved error on his claim there was not a
sufficient factual basis in the record to support his guilty plea. We also find
Cramblit did not receive an illegal sentence. We affirm Cramblit’s conviction and
sentence.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
According to the minutes of testimony, Cramblit rented a home from
Shane O’Malley in West Des Moines. In February 2016, O’Malley went to the
property and found it had been vandalized. Police officers investigated the
incident and concluded Cramblit was involved in the damage to the property.
Cramblit was charged with criminal mischief in the first degree.
Cramblit entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty
to the lesser included offense of criminal mischief in the third degree, in violation
of Iowa Code section 716.5 (2016), an aggravated misdemeanor. Cramblit
signed a written plea agreement, which was filed on June 7, 2016. The district
court accepted his plea. Before sentencing, Cramblit filed a motion in arrest of
judgment, claiming his plea was not knowing and voluntary because he was not
fully apprised of the consequences of his plea. The court granted the motion in
arrest of judgment.
On November 10, 2016, Cramblit filed a new written guilty plea to third-
degree criminal mischief. The written plea stated, “I admit I did the following: on
January 27, 2016, in Polk Co., Iowa, I did intentionally deface a wall w/spray
paint in a rental home in Polk Co. causing more than $500 in damage but less
3
than $1000.” The written plea also requested the court to accept as true the
minutes of testimony to further establish the factual basis for the plea. The court
accepted Cramblit’s plea. Cramblit was sentenced to 365 days in jail, with all but
thirty days suspended, and placed on probation. Cramblit now appeals his
conviction.
II. Guilty Plea
Cramblit claims the district court should not have accepted his guilty plea
because there was not an adequate factual basis in the record for the plea. “The
district court may not accept a guilty plea without first determining that the plea
has a factual basis.” State v. Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1999); see
also Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b). We review challenges to a guilty plea for the
correction of errors at law. State v. Keene, 629 N.W.2d 360, 363 (Iowa 2001).
The State claims Cramblit did not preserve error on this issue because he
did not file a motion in arrest of judgment. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a) (“A
defendant’s failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding by
motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the defendant’s right to assert such
challenge on appeal.”). The written guilty plea states,
To contest this plea I must file a Motion in Arrest of
Judgment within 45 days after this plea but no later than 5 days
prior to sentencing. I understand that by seeking immediate
sentencing I give up this right and forever waive my right to
challenge this plea and to appeal my plea.
Although Cramblit was not seeking immediate sentencing, we determine
Cramblit was adequately advised “failure to challenge the plea by filing the
motion within the time provided prior to sentencing precludes a right to assert the
challenge on appeal.” See State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004). In
4
addition to the statement in the written guilty plea, Cramblit was aware of his right
to file a motion in arrest of judgment because he had previously successfully filed
a similar motion in this case. Based on these circumstances, the notice in the
written plea agreement substantially complied with the requirement to inform
Cramblit of the necessity of filing a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his
guilty plea. See State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 681 (Iowa 2016) (noting the
substantial compliance standard). We conclude Cramblit is precluded from
challenging the factual basis for his guilty plea because he did not file a motion in
arrest of judgment. See State v. Miller, 590 N.W.2d 724, 725 (Iowa 1999).
III. Sentencing
Cramblit claims the court imposed an illegal sentence. He states the court
could not sentence him to a determinate term for an aggravated misdemeanor.
He claims the maximum penalty for an aggravated misdemeanor is a term of
imprisonment not to exceed two years, which is an indeterminate sentence.
Cramblit states the court could suspend part of a determinate sentence but could
not partially suspend an indeterminate sentence. When a defendant challenges
a sentence as being outside the court's statutory authority, we review for errors at
law. See State v. Morris, 416 N.W.2d 688, 689 (Iowa 1987).
“Criminal mischief in the third degree is an aggravated misdemeanor.”
Iowa Code § 716.5(2). Section 903.1(2) provides:
When a person is convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor,
and a specific penalty is not provided for, the maximum penalty
shall be imprisonment not to exceed two years. There shall be a
fine of at least six hundred twenty-five dollars but not to exceed six
thousand two hundred fifty dollars. When a judgment of conviction
of an aggravated misdemeanor is entered against any person and
5
the court imposes a sentence of confinement for a period of more
than one year the term shall be an indeterminate term.
In considering section 903.1(2), the Iowa Supreme Court has stated,
“Defendant could have been imprisoned for a period not to exceed two years.
This includes the possibility of a determinate sentence of not more than one
year.” State v. Erickson, 362 N.W.2d 528, 534 (Iowa 1985); see also State v.
Shield, 368 N.W.2d 721, 722 (Iowa 1985) (noting a determinate sentence of one
year or less was a possible sentence for an aggravated misdemeanor). When
the court imposes a determinate sentence, the court may “suspend any part of
the sentence, and place the person on probation.” State v. Steuk, 368 N.W.2d
171, 172 (Iowa 1985). We conclude Cramblit has not shown he received an
illegal sentence.
We affirm Cramblit’s conviction and sentence for third-degree criminal
mischief.
AFFIRMED.