Opinion ID: 1987135
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Facts and Underlying Procedures.

Text: The procedural background is not disputed. Collins pled guilty to third-degree burglary (Iowa Code sections 713.1 and 713.6A) in Appanoose County on December 26, 1995. He pled guilty to second-degree theft (Iowa Code sections 714.1 and 714.2) in Wapello County on January 5, 1996. The same defense attorney represented Collins in both cases, and the same judge took Collins' pleas in both the Appanoose and Wapello County cases. At the Wapello County plea hearing, the court, mindful of the earlier plea in Appanoose County, engaged in this colloquy: THE COURT: Mr. Kelly [assistant Wapello County attorney], is there any coordination on the plea agreements regarding the other charges? MR. KELLY: None that I'm aware of, Your Honor, not part of the plea agreement anyway. I think he has hopes but [it has] not been [discussed] in the plea negotiations. THE COURT: What is the plea agreement? MR. KELLY: Just plead to the charge is the substance of the plea agreement. THE COURT: Mr Neary? MR. NEARY [Defense counsel]: That's correct, Your Honor, with the addition that there are other admissions made by the defendant regarding other burglaries that occurred in Wapello County or other counties and he's admitted to law enforcement officers, and those wouldn't be prosecuted. Also that the sentencing here would be concurrent with that imposed in other counties, expectation that the defendant will in fact be ordered or sentenced to a term of imprisonment. MR. KELLY: I have no objection with that if that's Mr. Neary's understanding. We had talked about earlier the chance of not filing further charges in any that he has admitted to. We won't file further charges. I guess it depends which sequence, which county goes first, but I have no objection to running ours concurrent if we're the last one or after the others. We may be the first for all I know. THE COURT: This is not a Rule 9 plea, is it? MR. KELLY: No. MR. NEARY: No. THE COURT: Mr. Collins, you've heard what your lawyer said and the county attorney said about the plea negotiations and agreement, did you not? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Is that also your understanding of the negotiations and agreement? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. (Emphasis added.) Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 9 establishes procedures with respect to plea agreements. If a plea agreement has been reached, the court is to require the disclosure of the agreement at the time the plea is offered. Iowa R.Crim. P. 9(2). If the agreement is conditioned on the concurrence of the court, the court may immediately accept or reject the agreement, or the court may defer that decision until receipt of the presentence investigation report. Id. If the plea agreement is conditioned on the court's acceptance and the court does accept it, the court shall inform the defendant that the agreement, or a more favorable disposition, will be embodied in the judgment. Iowa R.Crim. P. 9(3). If the court rejects the agreement, it is to so inform the parties and give the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea. The court shall advise the defendant that if he persists in pleading guilty, the ultimate disposition may be less favorable than that contemplated by the agreement. Iowa R.Crim. P. 9(4). Rule 9 requires the defendant to be advised that a plea agreement does not bind the court. At sentencing, Collins' lawyer again requested that the Appanoose and Wapello County sentences run concurrently, and the assistant county attorney said he did not object to concurrent sentences. The district court, however, ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The court advised Collins of his right to appeal the sentences within thirty days, but he did not appeal. On November 17, 1996, Collins filed a pro se application for postconviction relief. He alleged the State violated a plea agreement that the sentences would run concurrently. He did not allege that his trial counsel was ineffective. On Collins' request, the court appointed an attorney to represent him in the postconviction proceeding. This lawyer, however, did not amend the application to claim ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The State contended the plea agreement was not a rule 9 plea that would be binding on the court, and in any event, Collins waived any objection by failing to file either a motion in arrest of judgment or an appeal. The State moved to dismiss Collins' application for postconviction relief, and the court granted it. Collins appealed, raising for the first time the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Collins' trial counsel had not provided ineffective assistance because the transcript, the court believed, showed that Collins was aware that the court was not bound by any plea agreement.