Opinion ID: 1295527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Iowa Constitution

Text: In the district court, Allen argued use of a prior uncounseled misdemeanor conviction would violate the Iowa Constitution, notwithstanding the advent of Nichols. Allen did not, however, cite any specific provision of the Iowa Constitution in support of his claim. Allen simply pointed the district court to our Cooper decision, where we stated under nearly identical circumstances that the reasoning of Baldasar and our own view of the importance of counsel  precluded enhancement. Cooper, 343 N.W.2d at 486 (emphasis added). The district court agreed. The court reasoned the aforementioned italicized phrase in Cooper indicated that we premised our conclusion in that case upon the Iowa Constitution. Wilkins, however, forecloses this argument. We stated: Wilkins argues that, because the result in our Cooper case was premised in part on our own view of the importance of counsel, see 343 N.W.2d at 486, we should continue to follow that precedent. Cooper was commenting on an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment of the federal constitution in which only four justices joined. Consequently, we believe that the reference to our view of the matter was intended as an affirmation of the view of the Sixth Amendment expressed by the justices in the Supreme Court's plurality opinion. Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d at 265 (emphasis added, footnote omitted); see Moe, 379 N.W.2d at 349 (viewing decision in Cooper as an application of the federal constitution). Because Cooper was only intended as an affirmation of a then-existing interpretation of the federal constitution, the district court incorrectly used it to ground Allen's state constitutional claim. See Wilkins, 687 N.W.2d at 265. On appeal, Allen maintains that even if Cooper did not rely upon the Iowa Constitution, we should nevertheless construe the Iowa Constitution to bar introduction of all prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions. In doing so, he resurrects a general theme present in his argument to the district court: namely, that we are free to construe the Iowa Constitution more broadly than the federal constitution. Allen points to two recent decisions which, he claims, show we are dedicated to ... expanding the personal liberties of Iowans. See State v. Daly, 623 N.W.2d 799, 801 (Iowa 2001); State v. Cline, 617 N.W.2d 277, 292-93 (Iowa 2000). While it is true that in Daly and Cline we disagreed with the reasoning of the United States Supreme Court, standing alone this mere fact of past disagreement does not mean we are, as a general proposition, dedicated to ... expanding the personal liberties of Iowans. Rather, we are simply charged with a solemn duty as the highest court of this sovereign state to interpret the Iowa Constitution. See Racing Ass'n v. Fitzgerald, 675 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 2004) (hereinafter RACI II ). When presented with sound reasons to do so, we will not hesitate to distinguish the protections afforded by the Iowa Constitution from those of the federal constitution. Cf. Pfister v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 688 N.W.2d 790, 795 (Iowa 2004) (Because the parties have articulated no basis for distinguishing them, state and federal constitutional guarantees appl[y] equally.); In re Detention of Garren, 620 N.W.2d 275, 280 n. 1 (Iowa 2000) (enunciating similar maxim; defendant had not offered an alternative test or guidelines). The United States Supreme Court's decisions are not binding upon us when faced with a corresponding claim under the Iowa Constitution. See State v. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d 216, 219 (Iowa 1980) (citing Bierkamp v. Rogers, 293 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Iowa 1980)). Once the irrelevance of Cooper to the state constitutional issue is demonstrated, it becomes difficult to discern a persuasive reason to depart from Nichols in Allen's arguments to the district court or in the district court ruling itself. Perhaps because both Allen and the district court thought Cooper squarely controlled, neither cited a single provision in the Iowa Constitution. [5] That said, Allen did argue generally in the district court that our view of the importance of counsel, as well as [our] belief in the unreliability of uncounseled convictions should preclude enhancement of the ... charge. In light of this statement, the nature of Allen's appeal brief, and (as we shall later see) how other state supreme courts have framed the issues, we consider two provisions in our analysis: the state constitutional rights to counsel and due process. See Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 9, 10. In order to justify a different result under our state constitution, then, there must be some principled basis for distinguishing at least one of these two provisions from the federal law as enunciated in Nichols. We find no persuasive reason to disagree with Nichols on the facts and arguments presented in this case, and therefore we decline to interpret the Iowa Constitution to afford more protection than the federal constitution with respect to the use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions. We begin by pointing out that the state right-to-counsel and due-process provisions are textually similar to their federal counterparts. Compare U.S. Const. amends. VI, XIV, with Iowa Const. art. I, §§ 9, 10. But see RACI II, 675 N.W.2d at 5 n. 2 (recognizing significant differences in text of state and federal equal protection clauses). For this reason, past construction of the federal constitution, including Nichols, is persuasive in our interpretation of the corresponding provisions of the Iowa Constitution. Cf. Olsen, 293 N.W.2d at 219 (citing Bierkamp, 293 N.W.2d at 579). Nor do we detect a trend in our sister state courts to abandon the federal analysis. A strong majority of the states that have analyzed uncounseled misdemeanor convictions under their state constitutional rights to counsel and due process have declined to forge new and different ground. See, e.g., State v. Thrasher, 783 So.2d 103, 105-06 (Ala.2000) (due process clause); State v. Delacruz, 258 Kan. 129, 899 P.2d 1042, 1045-47 (1995) (state constitution generally); State v. Cook, 706 A.2d 603, 604-05 (Me.1998) (due process); People v. Reichenbach, 459 Mich. 109, 587 N.W.2d 1, 4-7 (1998) (right to counsel); State v. Weeks, 141 N.H. 248, 681 A.2d 86, 88-89 (1996) (right to counsel and due process); State v. Woodruff, 124 N.M. 388, 951 P.2d 605, 616 (1997) (due process); State v. Porter, 164 Vt. 515, 671 A.2d 1280, 1284 (1996) (right to counsel and due process); State ex rel. Webb v. McCarty, 208 W.Va. 549, 542 S.E.2d 63, 67 (2000) (right to counsel). Those states that have parted ways with the majority appear to have done so because the right-to-counsel guarantee in their state constitutions is worded more broadly than our article I, section 10. In such states, the literal language of the right-to-counsel provision demands that the right attaches in any case where the statute under which the defendant is charged authorizes the possibility of incarceration; as a consequence, the prior uncounseled conviction is itself invalid as a matter of state constitutional law. See, e.g., State v. Deville, 879 So.2d 689, 690 (La.2004) (citing La. Const. art. I, § 13 (affording state constitutional right to counsel in all cases where the accused is charged with an offense punishable by imprisonment)); see also State v. Sinagoga, 81 Hawai'i 421, 918 P.2d 228, 239-41 (Ct.App.1996). Iowa's right-to-counsel guarantee contains narrower language, and we have not previously interpreted it to afford broader protection than the Argersinger/Scott actual imprisonment standard. See, e.g., McNabb v. Osmundson, 315 N.W.2d 9, 13 (Iowa 1982) (declining to rule on issue).