Opinion ID: 2086504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: We quote from the record to show how this question arose:

Text: THE COURT: Insofar as I can determine, the defendant's rights have been protected at all stages of this proceeding, and his application for post-conviction relief will be denied. Anything further? MR. FOKKENA: [County Attorney] I have nothing further. MR. STUMME: [Counsel for petitioner] On the basis of that, there's probably not any necessity for the defendant to testify. THE COURT: I don't know what he would testify to. He was given an opportunity to testify before [Judge] Clough back on the 14th of February, 1978. . . . MR. STUMME: It's our contention he didn't know what was happening, even though he was represented by counsel, your Honor. THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to go into that. If he didn't know what was happening he had ample opportunity to ask the court for an explanation, but I can't believe that Mr. Patterson, with his record, didn't know what was transpiring. MR. STUMME: Your Honor, the defendant's record is not at issue in this case. It's just this hearing and this is what THE COURT: I'm aware of that, but I'm also saying that the defendant is fairly well versed in these matters. MR. STUMME: May I respond? THE COURT: You may. MR. STUMME: Your Honor, how could the defendant be well versed in these matters when this law was fairly new, when it seems that the judge and that his attorney and the prosecutor [were] not well versed in these matters, who are supposed to be experts on the law? How can you expect the defendant to be expert on that? THE COURT: I don't know, but I just can't believe that he didn't know that the State was asking that his probation be revoked for the reason of his misconduct as exhibited by that violation report. While this was less than a categorical refusal to permit petitioner to testify, it was a clear signal such testimony would be unavailing. We hold it was error to decide the question of petitioner's credibility before he testified. It is petitioner's contention he did not understand the revocation proceedings. He contends his waiver therefore was not a voluntary or informed one. He wanted to so testify. He should have been allowed to do so. We recognize a postconviction hearing need not include petitioner's own testimony. See section 663A.7, The Code. However, in the present case, the issue involved a fact question; defendant was present in court; nothing prevented the presentation of his version of events which, if established, would have entitled him to relief on constitutional grounds. The trial court was disinclined to hear him because of a prior determination his story would not be credible. We believe this conclusion can be properly reached only after testimony is heard and evaluated. We therefore reverse and remand for the purpose of allowing petitioner to testify and for such other evidence as either party may offer on the issue of waiver. If the evidence establishes petitioner did not make a valid waiver of his rights at the revocation hearing, the revocation shall be set aside. Otherwise the revocation shall stand. Petitioner's right to appeal is preserved as to questions arising out of the hearing on remand. REVERSED AND REMANDED