IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-2215

Filed August 17, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MARGIE ANN McCALEB,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Angela L. Doyle, 

District Associate Judge.

Margie Ann McCaleb appeals the district court’s order denying her request 

for substitute counsel and claims her trial counsel was ineffective, thereby

preventing her from knowingly and intelligently entering a guilty plea. 

AFFIRMED.

Harry L. Haywood III of Haywood Law Office, Eldora, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
2

MULLINS, Judge.

Margie Ann McCaleb appeals the district court’s order denying her request 

for substitute counsel and claims her trial counsel was ineffective, thereby

preventing her from knowingly and intelligently entering a guilty plea.

On December 14, 2015, the day before trial was to commence, this matter 

came before the district court for a hearing on numerous matters, including

McCaleb’s counsel’s application for a competency evaluation and motion that the 

judge recuse herself.

1

 At the hearing, the court addressed statements made by 

McCaleb outside of court, in which she indicated she had attempted to fire her 

court-appointed counsel. While no formal motion was made, McCaleb stated, “I 

would like to have my first [privately-retained] attorney back,” in the event the 

court would pay for him. The district court explained it could not appoint the 

private attorney to represent her. McCaleb then voiced specific concerns about 

her counsel, primarily based on her counsel yelling at her and requesting the 

competency exam. Ultimately, McCaleb concluded her counsel would “be fine.”

The following day, McCaleb pled guilty to forgery, driving while barred, 

and failure to appear. During the plea, the following colloquy occurred:

THE COURT: I know you’ve had some differing conflict [with 

your attorney], we made a record on that yesterday about the 

competency evaluation? THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, it’s okay.

THE COURT: But you are satisfied with [your counsel’s] 

representation in this case? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, yes.

. . . .

THE COURT: Again, [McCaleb], in this case are you 

satisfied with the services of your attorney? THE DEFENDANT: 

Yes, I am.

 

1 During the hearing, McCaleb’s counsel withdrew the application for a competency 

evaluation; the motion to recuse was denied.
3

“A guilty plea is normally understood as a lid on the box.” Zacek v. 

Brewer, 241 N.W.2d 41, 49 (Iowa 1976). By freely and voluntarily pleading guilty 

to the above charges, during which McCaleb explicitly confirmed she was 

satisfied with the representation she had received, McCaleb waived her right to 

request new counsel or challenge the district court’s denial of new counsel, 

insofar as any denial was actually made. See State v. Burgess, 639 N.W.2d 564, 

567 (Iowa 2001) (noting “[a] guilty plea freely and voluntarily entered waives all 

defenses and objections, including constitutional guarantees” except “in certain 

circumstances, a defendant does not waive the right to challenge the plea itself, 

the right to challenge the indictment or information if it charges no offense, and 

the right to be free from double jeopardy”); see also State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 

638, 641 (Iowa 2009) (“It is well established that a defendant’s guilty plea waives 

all defenses and objections which are not intrinsic to the plea.”).

McCaleb does not directly challenge that her plea was freely and 

voluntarily entered. Instead, McCaleb claims her counsel was ineffective and 

that said ineffective representation prevented her from knowingly and intelligently 

entering a guilty plea. The record is insufficient to address her ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal; accordingly, we preserve her claim 

for postconviction proceedings. See State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 

2006) (“If an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim is raised on direct appeal 

from the criminal proceedings, we may decide the record is adequate to decide 

the claim or may choose to preserve the claim for postconviction proceedings. 

Only in rare cases will the trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim on 

direct appeal.” (citation omitted)).
4

We affirm without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a) 

and (c).

AFFIRMED.