Opinion ID: 1351560
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Denial of the Motion in Arrest of Judgment.

Text: Myers' motion in arrest of judgment raised general issues regarding the adequacy of the guilty-plea proceeding and her alleged diminished capacity. She argues that the court erred in denying the motion. We review a denial of a motion in arrest of judgment for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the ruling was based on reasons that are clearly unreasonable or untenable. State v. Speed, 573 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Iowa 1998). No such showing is made here. We have already rejected Myers' factual-basis claim and her claim that the court erred in failing to advise her of her right to compulsory process. The defendant's motion in arrest of judgment also asserted that she did not fully understand or appreciate the legal consequences of her guilty plea. This assertion is based largely on her claim that she suffered from diminished capacity because she had been incarcerated for approximately ten months and was suffering from depression. She testified that to her depression mean[t] [she was] not happy, not smiling  just ... feeling bad, based on her recent abortion. The guilty-plea colloquy set out above, however, supports the State's claim that she, in fact, did understand what she was doing, and the defendant and her counsel both made it clear at the plea hearing that she waived any defense of diminished responsibility. The motion in arrest of judgment also raises issues regarding the court's alleged failure to advise her that she would be required to pay $150,000 in restitution under Iowa Code section 910.3B. However, this issue was expressly covered in the court's colloquy, and her claim that such a provision is unconstitutional has previously been rejected by this court. See State v. Izzolena, 609 N.W.2d 541, 552-53 (Iowa 2000) (procedural-due-process argument rejected); State v. Klawonn, 609 N.W.2d 515, 519-20 (Iowa 2000) (substantive-due-process argument rejected). Myers has failed to show that the court's ruling denying her motion in arrest of judgment was based on reasons clearly erroneous or untenable.