Case Title: State v. Frazier

Citation: 232 N.W.2d 480

Docket Number: 57838

State: iowa

Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Date: 1975-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
232 N.W.2d 480 (1975) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Kenneth FRAZIER, Appellant. No. 57838. Supreme Court of Iowa. August 29, 1975. *481 Qualley & Nelson, P. C., Sioux City, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Zigmund Chwirka, Woodbury County Atty., for appellee. Submitted to MOORE, C. J., and RAWLINGS, LeGRAND, REYNOLDSON and McCORMICK, JJ. LeGRAND, Justice. This is another appeal challenging the validity of a guilty plea, seemingly freely and voluntarily tendered, because the trial court failed to observe the mandates of State v. Sisco, 169 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 1969). We reverse the trial court, set aside the plea, and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith. Defendant's complaint is limited to the assertion the trial court neglected to determine if he understood the nature of the charge when the guilty plea was accepted. This is one of Sisco's requirements. 169 N.W.2d at 547. In discussing this matter, we said in Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 714 (Iowa 1975), the court must first explain the charge to defendant and, next, must determine if he understands it. Brainard detailed a recommended practice to assure compliance with this rule. See 222 N.W.2d at 722. Although Brainard itself does not control here because defendant's plea was entered prior to the effective date of that opinion (State v. Dentler, 231 N.W.2d 594, Iowa, filed July 31, 1975), the fundamental problem discussed there must be decided heredid defendant understand the nature of the charge against him? We faced a similar question in State v. Watts, 225 N.W.2d 143, 144-145 (Iowa 1975), where we said failure of the court to make inquiry concerning defendant's understanding of the plea does not invalidate a plea if, on the whole record, it appears defendant did in fact appreciate the nature of the charge. In that case we added this: Our task now, therefore, is to decide if, on this record, defendant sufficiently understood the nature of the charge so that his guilty plea can be sustained. We hold he did not. The defendant first pled not guilty to a charge of assault with intent to commit murder in violation of § 690.6, The Code of Iowa, 1973. As a result of plea bargaining, he withdrew that plea and agreed to enter a plea of guilty to a charge of assault with intent to commit a felony, to-wit, manslaughter, in violation of § 694.5, The Code, 1973. The trial court expressed doubt the facts would support such a charge and then the record shows the following: The court ultimately accepted the tendered plea of guilty to the charge of assault with intent to commit a felony without specifying what felony. At no time during the trial court's questioning of defendant, either when the plea was taken or at sentencing, was there any mention of manslaughter or, indeed, any other felony defendant might have intended to commit at the time of the assault. We have held a charge of assault with intent to commit a felony without specifying the felony intended is sufficient for a valid indictment or information. See Herman v. Brewer, 193 N.W.2d 540, 545 (Iowa 1972). However, that does not resolve the question before us. While such an indictment or information is admittedly good, we must decide if defendant understood the nature of the charge without some explanation, either by the court or from some other source. As shown by the above excerpt from the transcript, defendant admitted he fired a gun but insisted he did not intend to hit anyone. At that point, the inquiry ended. The record casts grave doubt on whether defendant understood the nature of the offense or whether he was simply willing to plead to any charge carrying a lesser penalty than the crime with which he was first charged. The procedure followed fails to substantially comply with the rules prescribed in State v. Sisco, supra; neither does it meet the standards laid down in State v. Watts, supra, concerning the extent to which the trial court must make inquiry about defendant's understanding of the charge against him. As in so many criminal cases reaching this court, defendant is not now represented by counsel who defended him in the trial court. We can only speculate as to whether trial counsel recognized the deficiency now *483 relied on. We have the same curiosity concerning the prosecutor's role when the plea was taken. Both had a duty to point out any known deficiency in the plea process. It is unfortunate so much of our docket is devoted to appeals like the present one which could easily be avoided. We repeat what we said in State v. Williams, 224 N.W.2d 17, 19 (Iowa 1974): The judgment is reversed, defendant's guilty plea is set aside, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. Reversed and remanded.