IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0956

Filed January 11, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ARLO BLU HARRIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Joel W. Barrows, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals following his pleas of guilty to willful injury causing 

bodily injury and false imprisonment. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Badding, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

After striking his girlfriend in the head and face with a guitar and refusing to 

stop his car at her son’s house on the way to a hospital, Arlo Blu Harris was 

charged with: count 1, willful injury causing serious injury; count 2, going armed 

with intent; and count 3, false imprisonment. In a plea agreement between Harris 

and the State, the parties agreed Harris would plead guilty to the lesser-included 

offense of willful injury causing bodily injury in count 1 and false imprisonment as 

charged in count 3, with dismissal of count 2. As for sentencing, the agreement 

provided that for the willful-injury charge, the State would recommend a 

suspended, indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed five years with 

supervised probation for two years. On the false-imprisonment charge, the State 

would recommend a concurrent term of 365 days in jail with all but 161 days 

suspended—the time Harris had served in jail. For each count, the agreement 

specified that the defense was “free to request a deferred judgment.”

At the sentencing hearing, the following occurred:

THE COURT: So I’ve read the plea agreement. The State’s

recommendation was probation on Count 1 and 365 days with all but 

161 suspended on Count 3. I think that’s because Mr. Harris has 

already served 161 days. Is that correct, Mr. Barry?

[PROSECUTOR]: It is, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Is there anything that you want to add to 

that recommendation?

[PROSECUTOR]: No, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Johnston.

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I would respectfully

request that the court follow the recommendation of the plea 

agreement and the recommendation of the Presentence

Investigation Report, and on behalf of my client, he would request 

that the court consider granting him a deferred judgment so that he 

would not be a convicted felon. It would help him with employment 

and other things of that nature, Your Honor.
3

THE COURT: Does the State have a position with respect to 

the deferred? I think the plea agreement said that they could ask for 

it; is that correct?

[PROSECUTOR]: That’s correct, Your Honor. It’s the State’s 

recommendation that the sentence be imposed and suspended. The 

defendant has a record that the court can see, and what’s before the 

court today is actually two separate assaultive cases from 2020 and 

2021. Just it’s the State’s opinion that although the defendant may 

have some opportunity to improve himself in the future, his history 

just simply doesn’t show that, and the benefit of a deferred judgment 

with that criminal history and the background of these cases just 

isn’t—isn’t appropriate in the State’s eyes.

The district court accepted Harris’s plea and imposed a suspended 

sentence with two years’ probation on count 1 and 365 days with all but 161 days 

suspended on count 3. Harris appeals,1 contending the State breached the terms 

and spirit of the plea agreement by not standing silent when asked by the court 

what the State’s position was on deferred judgment. 

“A prosecutor’s breach of the plea agreement at sentencing irreparably 

taints the sentencing proceeding and a claim of breach is reviewable on direct

appeal even in the absence of contemporaneous objection.” Boldon, 954 N.W.2d

at 70. We review the claim that the State violated a plea agreement for errors at 

law. State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369, 370 (Iowa 1998). Our inquiry is “whether the 

prosecutor acted contrary to the common purpose of the plea agreement and the 

justified expectations of the defendant and thereby effectively deprived the 

defendant of the benefit of the bargain.” Boldon, 954 N.W.2d at 71.

A few cases provide the contours of our analysis. In State v. Fannon, the 

State and the defendant entered a plea agreement where, in exchange for 

1 The parties agree that Harris has good cause to pursue this direct appeal under 

Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2021). See State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 

(Iowa 2021).
4

Fannon’s guilty pleas, the State would reduce both counts to sexual abuse in the 

third degree and make no sentencing recommendation during the sentencing 

hearing. 799 N.W.2d 515, 518 (Iowa 2011). But, at sentencing, the State 

requested that consecutive terms of imprisonment be imposed. Id. Despite the 

prosecutor’s prompt acknowledgment that the recommendation was a 

“misstatement” and a “mistake,” id. at 519, the supreme court found the breach of 

the plea agreement required resentencing:

[D]efense counsel’s failure to object to the State’s breach prevented 

[the defendant] from having an opportunity to either demand specific 

performance of the agreement before a new sentencing judge or 

withdraw the guilty pleas. We have no reason to doubt the ability of 

the sentencing court to disregard improper remarks made by 

prosecutors during sentencing. Nevertheless, “the interests of 

justice and appropriate recognition of the duties of the prosecution in 

relation to promises made in the negotiation of pleas of guilty will be 

best served by” ensuring defendants who plead guilty in reliance on 

promises made by the State receive the benefit of the bargain. 

Therefore, counsel’s failure to object to the State’s breach caused 

prejudice by depriving [the defendant] of the benefit of the bargain, 

namely, that the State would make no sentencing recommendation 

during the sentencing hearing.

Id. at 523 (internal citation omitted); see also King, 576 N.W.2d at 370–71 (holding 

that where State agreed to remain silent at sentencing, its request that the court 

follow the presentence-investigation recommendation of a prison term breached 

the agreement and resentencing was required).

In State v. Patten, the parties agreed upon suspended sentences: 

The context of the prosecutor’s performance is the paramount 

consideration for assessing compliance with plea agreements. 

Perhaps even more important than what the prosecutor does in any 

given case is how she does it—what she says, in what way, and with 

what implication. The record before us reveals that the prosecutor 

asked the court to adopt the parties’ plea agreement but then, for the 

first time, qualified her request by explaining the “sole reason” and 

“sole driving force” behind agreeing to recommend suspended 
5

sentences was the victim’s desire for the defendant to be part of their 

daughter’s life. This qualification undermined—and therefore 

breached—the prosecutor’s agreement to recommend suspended 

sentences, entitling the defendant to resentencing before a different 

district court judge.

981 N.W.2d 126, 128 (Iowa 2022).

And in Boldon, the court explained that expressions of a material 

reservation, either express or implied, deprives the defendant of the benefit of the 

bargain. 954 N.W.2d at 72. 

Here, the prosecutor recommended concurrent sentences in accord 

with the parties’ plea agreement. The prosecutor stated, “The State 

is recommending that the counts run concurrently with each other.” 

The prosecutor then went on to discuss those factors that justified 

incarceration. At no time during the sentencing proceeding did the 

prosecutor suggest consecutive sentences would be more 

appropriate than concurrent sentences. The parties agreed the 

State would recommend concurrent sentences but be free to argue 

for a term of incarceration while the defendant would be free to argue 

for a deferred judgment or suspended sentence. That is what 

occurred.

Id. at 71. 

This case is closer to Boldon than Fannon or Patten. There was nothing in 

Harris’s plea agreement that required the State to stand silent. Rather, the State 

agreed to recommend suspended sentences, and Harris was free to seek deferred 

judgments. The State’s explanation why it recommended suspended sentences

did not deprive Harris of the benefit of the bargain. Finding no breach of the plea 

agreement, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.