Case Title: State v. Sargent

Citation: 210 N.W.2d 656

Docket Number: 

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1973-09-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
210 N.W.2d 656 (1973) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Gerald Lee SARGENT, Appellant. No. 55289. Supreme Court of Iowa. September 19, 1973. John P. Roehrick, Des Moines, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., C. Joseph Coleman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Ray Fenton, County Atty., for appellee. Submitted to MOORE, C.J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REES and UHLENHOPP, JJ. *657 MOORE, Chief Justice. Defendant combines his appeals from judgments on guilty plea convictions for uttering a forged instrument and for assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. We affirm the judgment in each. The sole question raised by defendant is whether the trial court complied with the guideline requirements as established by our now oft-cited case of State v. Sisco, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 542. Stated briefly we therein held that when a guilty plea is entered the trial court must address the accused personally and by interrogation determine whether he understands the charge made, is aware of the penal consequences of the plea and that it is entered voluntarily. State v. Hackett, Iowa, 201 N.W.2d 487, 488; State v. Christensen, Iowa, 201 N.W.2d 457, 458. On July 12, 1971 assistant county attorney, Ronald Kuntz, defendant and his attorney Lawrence Scalise appeared before District Judge Gibson Holliday. The following proceedings were had: Formal orders accepting the guilty pleas and entering judgments as per the court's pronouncements were duly entered. Defendant argues the record does not adequately demonstrate he understood the nature of the charge, the court did not sufficiently so inform him, voluntariness of his plea was not shown and the factual basis for the plea was not established. We do not agree. The record is contrary to defendant's contentions as to each plea. The guidelines established by Sisco do not require a ritualistic or rigid formula for court's interrogation. Meaningful compliance is the requirement. State v. Bledsoe, Iowa, 200 N.W.2d 529, 531; State v. Sisco, supra, Iowa, 169 N.W.2d 542, 548. The trial court's compliance with the standards approved in Sisco is not a complete substitute for advice of counsel. Its purpose is to complement defendant's right of counsel to insure that defendant's plea meets the formal requisite for the plea. State v. Christensen, Iowa, 201 N.W.2d 457, 459; State v. Mehuys, Iowa, 172 N.W.2d 131, 136. Standard 3.2(b) of the American Bar Association Standards relating to pleas of guilty states the duties of defense counsel in connection with a guilty plea is: "To aid *660 the defendant in reaching a decision, defense counsel, after appropriate investigation, should advise the defendant of the alternatives available and of considerations deemed important to him or the defendant in reaching a decision." The trial court's interrogation of defendant clearly shows Mr. Scalise rendered such aid. It seems inconceivable defendant was without complete understanding of the nature of each charge to which he was pleading guilty. As to each the name given the offense is descriptive of the nature thereof. In response to the trial court's inquiry defendant stated he was pleading guilty voluntarily. Factual basis for the plea to each charge is established by defendant's statements to the court. It must be noted defendant stated he was pleading guilty because he was guilty. We hold there was meaningful compliance for the Sisco guidelines and that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered a guilty plea to each of the charges here involved. Each judgment is affirmed. Affirmed.