State of Iowa v. Katrina Eubanks

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0543
Filed December 5, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
KATRINA EUBANKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg,
Judge.
Defendant appeals her convictions for neglect of a dependent person and
dependent-adult abuse resulting in injury. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Katrina Eubanks appeals her convictions for neglect of a dependent person
and dependent-adult abuse resulting in injury. We find the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying Eubanks’s post-plea motion for new counsel. We
affirm the district court.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
From 2015 to 2017, Eubanks was employed as a caregiver for A.B., a young
adult female with cerebral palsy. A.B. is unable to take care of herself. On May 28,
2017, Eubanks filled a bathtub with scalding hot water. Outside Eubanks’s
supervision, A.B. got into the bath and sustained second-degree burns. Eubanks
did not seek medical attention for A.B. for five days or disclose the burns to A.B.’s
family or her employer. Following A.B.’s injuries, Eubanks drove A.B. to Florida
without telling anyone where they were going, using only over-the-counter
ointment to treat A.B.’s burns. A.B.’s burns turned septic before Eubanks sought
medical assistance for her in Florida. A.B., who had blisters all over her body, was
hospitalized for two weeks. The hospital discovered a piece missing from A.B.’s
feeding tube, which Eubanks stated had been missing for a while and instead she
had been feeding A.B. apple sauce.
On October 29, the State charged Eubanks with one count of kidnapping in
the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 710.1(4) and .2 (2017), and two
counts of neglect of a dependent person, in violation of section 726.3. Eubanks
entered into a plea agreement with the State and on February 9, 2018, pleaded
guilty to the two counts of neglect of a dependent person and an amended count
of dependent-adult abuse resulting in injury. At the plea hearing, Eubanks initially
3
decided not to enter a plea but changed her mind and accepted the plea offer after
a short recess. As part of the plea, the parties jointly recommended consecutive
sentences.
In a letter written February 12 and received by the court on February 27,
Eubanks requested a new attorney simply stating, “I am not happy with my
representation” and suggesting alternate counsel. In a second letter dated
February 27, Eubanks renewed her request claiming her counsel had been
dishonest and provided erroneous instruction regarding her plea. The court
treated the letters as a motion to change representation; following a hearing, the
court denied Eubanks’s request. The court entered judgment and sentence on
March 28, imposing three consecutive terms of ten years on each count to be
served concurrent to a sentence imposed by the state of Florida. Eubanks appeals
the district court’s denial of her post-plea request for a new attorney.
II. Standard of Review
“The decision to grant a motion for substitute counsel is a matter within the
trial court’s discretion.” State v. Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2004). “To
establish an abuse of discretion, [a defendant] must show that ‘the court exercised
the discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.’” State v. Lopez, 633 N.W.2d 774, 778 (Iowa 2001) (quoting State
v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 1997)).
III. Analysis
“Where a defendant represented by a court-appointed attorney requests the
court appoint substitute counsel, sufficient cause must be shown to justify
replacement.” Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d at 749. “Sufficient reasons include a conflict
4
of interest, an irreconcilable conflict with the client, or a complete breakdown in
communications between the attorney and the client.” State v. Brooks, 540
N.W.2d 270, 272 (Iowa 1995). The court has “a duty of inquiry once a defendant
requests substitute counsel on account of an alleged breakdown in
communication.” Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d at 750. If the court denies a motion for
substitute counsel, the defendant must show either prejudice or a conflict of
interest. Lopez, 633 N.W.2d at 779.
Here, the court conducted an inquiry with Eubanks on her motion for new
counsel prior to sentencing. The court expressly asked Eubanks why she wanted
new counsel, and Eubanks answered at length. In particular, Eubanks claimed
her counsel “kept badgering me, coercing me, trying to tell me why I should take
[the plea offer].” Eubanks stated she did not feel her attorney believed her, would
not defend her to the best of the attorney’s abilities, misled her regarding her
Florida conviction, and misled her about when she might parole out. Her attorney
responded as far as attorney–client privilege would allow.
The court found Eubanks’s counsel was “competent, and she has
performed her duties, to this court’s observation, according to the law and
according to the ethical canons.” The court denied Eubanks’s motion.
We note at the plea hearing Eubanks told the court she was satisfied with
the services of her attorney. The only proceedings remaining at the time of
Eubanks’s request were a motion in arrest of judgment and a sentencing hearing
where the parties had agreed to the sentence in the plea agreement. “Last-minute
requests for substitute counsel, insofar as they constitute a delay tactic, are
disfavored.” Tejeda, 677 N.W.2d at 750. The court’s decision to deny Eubanks’s
5
motion was neither based on clearly untenable reasons nor a clearly unreasonable
exercise of discretion. We affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.