Opinion ID: 1936501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plea Colloquy.

Text: We next address a claim by Meron that the in-court colloquy in support of her guilty plea did not comply with the requirements of rule 2.8(2)( b ). The State argues the district court substantially complied with the rule, and the failure by the district court to specifically address each specific requirement of the rule was overcome when it confirmed with Meron that her attorney had fully discussed with her the trial rights that were lost by pleading guilty. A defendant waives a variety of constitutional rights by pleading guilty to a criminal offense, and it is fundamental that a plea of guilty is valid only if it is given voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. See State v. Hook, 623 N.W.2d 865, 869 (Iowa 2001), abrogated in part on other grounds by Barnes, 652 N.W.2d at 468. Consequently, before accepting a plea of guilty, rule 2.8(2)( b ) requires the court to determine if the plea is voluntarily and intelligently made and has a factual basis. State v. Kirchoff, 452 N.W.2d 801, 804 (Iowa 1990). To satisfy this requirement the court is required to make a specific inquiry into a number of matters set forth in the rule. [2] See id. at 804-05. Absent a written plea of guilty describing all the matters set forth in the rule, noncompliance with oral requirements of the rule normally constitutes reversible error. See Hook, 623 N.W.2d at 871. There was no written plea of guilty filed in this case. Consequently, we look to the in-court colloquy as the source for determining compliance with the requirements of rule 2.8(2)( b ). Substantial compliance is required. State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574, 577-78 (Iowa 2002). In this case, the substantial compliance standard was not satisfied. A number of the requirements of the rule were totally ignored. For example, there was nothing said to Meron that conveyed the concept that she could compel the attendance of witnesses at trial or that she could not be forced to incriminate herself. See State v. Dowis, 224 N.W.2d 467, 468-69 (Iowa 1974) (waiver of right to confront accusers and privilege against self-incrimination required before plea can be accepted). Moreover, the general confirmation made by the court that counsel for Meron discussed her trial rights with her is insufficient. See Worley, 297 N.W.2d at 370. The record must confirm the existence of substantial compliance in listing each right. See Myers, 653 N.W.2d at 577-78. We conclude the district court did not substantially comply with rule 2.8(2)( b ) in accepting the plea of guilty.