IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1247

Filed June 10, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TROY T.C. TOLEFREE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette 

Boehlje, Judge. 

Troy Tolefree appeals his guilty plea and sentence to possession of a 

controlled substance. AFFIRMED. 

David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles 

City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Heather Ann Mapes, Assistant 

Attorney General, Carlyle D. Dalen, County Attorney, and Nichole Benes, 

Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J. and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015). 
2

BOWER, J.

Troy Tolefree appeals his guilty plea and sentence for possession of a 

controlled substance, claiming the district court abused its discretion by failing to 

make further inquiry into a written notation concerning his dissatisfaction with his 

attorney. Since Tolefree did not file a motion in arrest of judgment, we find 

Tolefree has failed to preserve error on his claim. We affirm Tolefree’s sentence. 

On December 23, 2013, the State charged Tolefree with two counts of 

possession of marijuana, a schedule I controlled substance, first offense, 

pursuant to Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2013). Tolefree and the State 

entered into a plea agreement in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of 

possession of marijuana in exchange for the State dismissing the second count. 

The guilty plea included the following language concerning Tolefree’s relationship 

with counsel:

17. I have told my attorney all facts and circumstance known 

to me about the charge made against me in this case. I believe my 

attorney is fully informed on all such matters. 

18. I believe my attorney has done everything possible to 

counsel and assist me; I am satisfied with the advice and help 

given me. 

Tolefree initialed next to paragraphs 17 and 18. However, below paragraph 17, 

Tolefree wrote: “I do not feel my attorney informed me;” and below paragraph 18 

he wrote: “No, I do not feel my attorney has done everything possible to counsel 

and assist me.” The guilty plea also included a waiver of the right to file a motion 

in arrest of judgment. 
3

The district court accepted the written guilty plea on July 14, 2014, and 

entered judgment and sentence without a hearing. Concerning Tolefree’s written 

statements about his attorney, the court reasoned:

The Court notes that the Defendant ‘complains’ of his attorney, yet 

has signed the guilty plea which provides the information which is 

necessary. Additionally, Counsel expended significant amounts of 

time during the case. It would appear the Defendant is looking to 

blame someone else for his choices rather than accept 

responsibility for his criminal behavior.

Tolefree now appeals this sentence. 

Tolefree claims as his guilty plea indicates a misunderstanding or a 

violation of his rights, the court should have conducted an in court colloquy about 

the nature of his complaints concerning his attorney. However, Tolefree did not 

file a motion in arrest of judgment. “A defendant’s failure to challenge the 

adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding by motion in arrest of judgment shall 

preclude the defendant’s right to assert such challenge on appeal.” Iowa R. 

Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a); State v. Ortiz, 789 N.W.2d 761, 764 (Iowa 2010). Tolefree 

claims he preserved error since his claim implicates his constitutional right to 

counsel, but Tolefree specifically notes his claim is not one of ineffective 

assistance of counsel.1 See Ortiz, 789 N.W.2d at 764 (noting ineffective counsel 

claims are an exception to our error preservation requirements, even if a party 

has signed a plea agreement waiving the right to file a motion in arrest of 

judgment). Tolefree does not raise any other constitutional claims in his brief—

instead he focuses on the “adequacy” of the plea proceeding. Therefore, we find 

 

1 On page seven of his brief Tolefree stated: “The issue before the court is not whether 

Tolefree’s attorney was ineffective in her performance, but whether the District Court 

should have accepted a guilty plea knowing the performance was being questioned.”
4

Tolefree has failed to preserve error on this claim, and we affirm the district 

court’s judgment and sentence.

AFFIRMED.