language of the statute requiring it to provide mr brown with specific notice that it intended to rely on a prior action to elevate the charge offense from a misdemeanor to a felony as the only supreme court recently make wasn't affected he was indicted i did notice that they were looking to look into a tree and treat it as a felony if they only take felonies well it was information in this case i believe but misdemeanors can be charged by their complaint information or indictment so the and what the iowa supreme court held in easily is that when a pro conviction is not in all of the offense but rather is instead merely used to increase the classification of the offense that prior conviction had defendant has to be given notice in accordance and that is what the plain language required yes the state would have this court hold that it's sufficient to really identify the prior conviction but the effect of that interpretation would be to strike that provision that the legislature clearly added to want to let me see when they adopted it back in ninety nine and one of the primary here also another provision in the statute specifically aimed at the specific crime of retail theft they have says that under sixteen a ten too well when a person has any such prior conviction information indictment charging a person so state such prior conviction over general isn't it specifically say that the actual stating of a prior conviction will give notice i think here you have to look at the legislative history of one having three c and that's something that was discussed and easily they say to a case people v where a criminal offense was increased from one class offense to another because of a per conviction a few of those like retail theft hadn't noticed provision within the stache most of them though did not have those religion and so what the legislature intended  cases not just to those offenses that didn't have an office provision but to all offenses in which like retail theft the classification was increased so to say that the retail theft notice provision imposes a lesser burden it would be inconsistent with what the owners there said there's that old that old rules specific rules over john however if we look at the legislative history that doesn't apply a place later as the only supreme court clearly said intended to clarify the law and for provide  that then there wouldn't have been much purpose for the legislature just to specifically add that provision requiring the state to actually state its intention which is what the state did not do here i also point out that  lots of different ways in which a prior conviction can be used at sentencing and so what we want to level three see does is make sure that there's absolutely no confusion right from the start of the case right from the point at which a defendant is you know it's interesting my question my question is what with when when the state drafted the indictment what reason would they have the put their prior conviction in the indictment because because if it's if it's if they if it doesn't show their intent to enhance then it's surplus that they don't need  in order just convict a misdemeanor so why would they put it in the first was the purpose i think first of all we're assuming defense counsel and defendant automatically know that that prior conviction the purpose that it serves i there are consequences to that and that means in some cases there might be if you would be about the purpose of that protection we can always assume defendants sometimes go pro se they should know right from me getting that they're facing in a hand sentence there should be ambiguity about that whatsoever and and even more so one of the primary rules of check for education is that you shouldn't render plain language of a statute superfluous and if you read that requirement out if you treat an indictment or information like the one in this case a sufficient then you affectively violated that most fundamental rule of interpretation i would also point out that it's very easy for the state to comply with this rule and another provision of the statute paragraph  gives the state up until trial to amend the charging instrument to provide the proper notice of the state it's very nice of life and they have plenty of opportunity to comply but they never did so here and then the result of that is that mr brown faced a considerable amount of time in prison that he wouldn't have face otherwise had the state provided proper notice because of that we would ask you to review this and reverse his son his conviction for addition to the elements the offense the state provided that notice of its intention to treat this as a felony by stating after the elements the following and the defendant has been previously convicted of the offense of retail that under case number ten c five zero one one three zero one by statute that prior conviction is not an element of facts there is literally only one reason that is included in this charge and that is to put him on notice that this is a felony because that is complying with that requirement of the retail that stature and that of eleven three c the retailer that statute in section sixty eight s tense up to says that it person has been convicted of retail theft of property and whose previously been once the state talks about the previous events that they are stating the intention to see and hands yes your honor there is no other reason for that prior conviction being there it is not by two ways around it first they are essentially identical and second if this court were to find they weren't the specific retailer that stage would control because it is the more specific as this court is noted that is a general rule and it has been amended several times since nine hundred ninety including two thousand and eleven when the minimum requirement for it to be a result from one hundred fifty dollars to three hundred dollars and that notice provision is never changed but here you're right they are the same one of the three see is simply meant as the more general version of this to apply to all but all statutes and here it says that the in one of the three see that the state shall state such prior because one of the three see also says that prior conviction is not an element a defense there is no other reason for it under the retail the statute or one of the three see for that prior conviction to be in the charge other than to put the only reason it isn't there easily never held that it has to expressly say in addition to stating that prior conviction state and this is going to be a felony and it's also a class four because we haven't read a which counsel referenced which sets forth what has to be in that charge for any type of felony offense whether it's going to hamster not it never requires the state to tell the defendant in the informational indictment well particular class offense it is or whether it's a misdemeanor  he's been charged with and it's also more precise because it says stating that prior conviction is done some ways apostle says that if you look at the legislative history concerning the passage of on there was truly no other reason for that to be and finally honors this court this he's cannot be remanded for a misdemeanor conviction sentence because such a conviction sentence would be boy this defendant charged with a second offense of retail charge conviction the charge and he was on notice as we can see by the statute that he was new entirely throughout this process and when it finished charging challenges that indictment for the first time on appeal he must show prejudice he cannot show prejudice therefore to impose anything less would force or here the state did not meet all the correct was that for making a felony conviction and authorize sentence if only conviction only becomes authorized if the state complies with the notice  incentive the state ever has to comply with wall street to see a case like this they could just come in a sentencing and say even though we didn't comply any other sentence would be void and that would effectively strike the whole provision from the code but also to talk briefly about twelve that notice provision was no longer covered the legislature i guess finally got around to eliminating that redundant provision when they kind of revamped the entire section on retail theft regardless