Opinion ID: 1693511
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did Trial Counsel Render Ineffective Assistance in Allowing Schminkey to Plead Guilty to the Offense of Theft of a Motor Vehicle?

Text: The district court may not accept a guilty plea without first determining that the plea has a factual basis. See Iowa R.Crim. P. 8(2)(b); State v. Burtlow, 299 N.W.2d 665, 668 (Iowa 1980). This requirement exists even where the plea is an Alford plea. See Alford, 400 U.S. at 38 n. 10, 91 S.Ct. at 168 n. 10, 27 L.Ed.2d at 171-72 n. 10. Where a factual basis for a charge does not exist, and trial counsel allows the defendant to plead guilty anyway, counsel has failed to perform an essential duty. See Brooks, 555 N.W.2d at 448. Prejudice in such a case is inherent. See State v. Hack, 545 N.W.2d 262, 263 (Iowa 1996) (holding that where there is no factual basis for a guilty plea, ineffective assistance of counsel is established). Therefore, our first and only inquiry is whether the record shows a factual basis for Schminkey's guilty plea to the charge of theft of a motor vehicle. In deciding whether a factual basis exists, we consider the entire record before the district court at the guilty plea hearing, including any statements made by the defendant, facts related by the prosecutor, the minutes of testimony, and the presentence report. See Brooks, 555 N.W.2d at 448-49; State v. Fluhr, 287 N.W.2d 857, 867-68 (Iowa 1980), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Kirchoff, 452 N.W.2d 801, 805 (Iowa 1990). The offense of theft is defined in section 714.1(1), which states that a person commits theft when he [t]akes possession or control of the property of another, or property in the possession of another, with the intent to deprive the other thereof.  (Emphasis added.) Schminkey challenges the factual basis for the intent element of this crime. The intent required for the commission of a theft is an intent to deprive the owner of his or her property. See Eggman v. Scurr, 311 N.W.2d 77, 79 (Iowa 1981). Schminkey argues that this element of the crime requires proof that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle. He contrasts the theft statute, section 714.1(1), with Iowa Code section 714.7, defining the crime of operating a vehicle without the owner's consent. The latter statute prohibits the possession or control of . . . any self-propelled vehicle. . . without the consent of the owner of such, but without the intent to permanently deprive the owner thereof.  Iowa Code § 714.7 (emphasis added). This crime, operating a vehicle without the owner's consent, is expressly made a lesser included offense of the crime of theft. See id. Schminkey correctly argues that an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property is an essential element of theft under section 714.1(1). The legislature's distinction of the crime of theft from the crime of operating a vehicle without the owner's consentthe existence or absence of an intent to permanently deprive the ownersupports this conclusion. In addition, this interpretation of section 714.1(1) is consistent with the crime of larceny as it was defined prior to the revision of Iowa's criminal laws in 1978. See generally Eggman, 311 N.W.2d at 80 (Revised criminal code offenses are to be construed as altering prior law only if a legislative intent to change the prior law is clear.); Emery v. Fenton, 266 N.W.2d 6, 8 (Iowa 1978) (stating that the criminal law revision is primarily a restatement of [the prior] law). Prior to the criminal code revisions, the crime of larceny, see Iowa Code § 709.1 (1977), and the separate crime of larceny of a motor vehicle, see id. § 321.82, required proof of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of the stolen property or vehicle. See Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 721 (Iowa 1974); State v. Boggs, 181 Iowa 358, 360, 164 N.W. 759, 760 (1917). In one of the few cases in which this court has addressed the issue of intent since the criminal code revisions, we held that the record must demonstrate more than an intent to temporarily deprive the owner of the property in order to prove a theft. See Fluhr, 287 N.W.2d at 867. [1] Because proof that the defendant acted with the specific purpose of depriving the owner of his property requires a determination of what the defendant was thinking when an act was done, it is seldom capable of being established with direct evidence. See State v. Fratzke, 446 N.W.2d 781, 783 (Iowa 1989). Therefore, the facts and circumstances surrounding the act, as well as any reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts and circumstances, may be relied upon to ascertain the defendant's intent. See State v. Nance, 533 N.W.2d 557, 562 (Iowa 1995). Accordingly, we examine the record for facts and circumstances that would support an inference that Schminkey intended to permanently take possession of the truck. The record upon which the trial court could draw to determine whether a factual basis existed for Schminkey's plea of guilty to the theft charge was minimal. Because Schminkey entered an Alford plea, he made no admissions with respect to his commission of this crime. The county attorney made no factual statements. The presentence report had not been completed. The court merely had before it the minutes of testimony. See generally State v. Townsend, 238 N.W.2d 351, 355 (Iowa 1976) (holding factual basis for an Alford plea may be determined from the minutes). From the minutes of testimony, it can be established that at 7 p.m. on the day of the accident, Schminkey accompanied a friend to a party where he consumed several beers. He eventually left that party and went to a bar where he drank more alcohol. Later in the evening, at approximately 10:45 p.m., Schminkey was seen driving a pickup from Blairstown to Van Horne. Minutes later, he was involved in the accident described above, and then crashed the vehicle into a fence a block or two from the accident scene. The minutes also show that the owner of the pickup had parked the vehicle in Blairstown and had not given Schminkey permission to drive it. We find no facts or circumstances in this recitation that would allow an inference that Schminkey intended to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle. In a similar case that arose under Iowa's old larceny statute, this court reversed a conviction based on a guilty plea in part on the ground that the trial court could not have found a factual basis for the defendant's guilty plea because the record did not establish a factual basis for the intent element of the crime. Brainard, 222 N.W.2d at 721 (plurality opinion). In Brainard, the defendant admitted in the plea colloquy that he took another's automobile without permission. Id. at 720. He denied that he intended to sell the car, but he admitted that he did not intend to bring it back. Id. This court stated that [t]he essential question as to [the defendant's] intent is whether he intended to deprive the owner permanently of his automobile. Id. at 721. We concluded the record did not show a factual basis for finding that the defendant had that intent. Id. Without that intent, we noted, he would at most be guilty of the lesser offense of operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. Id. Under analogous circumstances, the court of appeals has also concluded the record lacked a factual basis for a finding of intent. State v. Henning, 299 N.W.2d 909, 911 (Iowa App.1980). In Henning, the defendant pled guilty to a charge of assault with intent to inflict serious injury. Id. at 909. During the plea colloquy, he acknowledged being involved in a fight, but stated that he did not otherwise remember the event. Id. at 911. The court of appeals found the record adequate to show a factual basis for the defendant's acts, but not to show a factual basis for the requisite intent. Id. Other states have, under similar facts, reached the same result as did our courts in Brainard and Henning. E.g., Pottinger v. State, 122 Fla. 405, 165 So. 276, 277 (1936) (holding the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the defendant intended to permanently deprive another of his automobile, where the record showed the defendant, after an evening of drinking, took the car of another, which he then drove to other bars); Gibson v. State, 8 Md.App. 1, 256 A.2d 890, 892 (1969) (reversing guilty verdict on theft charge because evidence did not support finding of intent to permanently deprive owner of vehicle, where defendant took car to drive himself home after escaping from police custody); Slay v. State, 241 So.2d 362, 364 (Miss.1970) (holding evidence that defendant took another's car and drove it around town, eventually wrecking it while being pursued by the police, did not support a finding of intent to permanently deprive the owner of his car); cf. Fluhr, 287 N.W.2d at 866-67 (holding, in challenge to a guilty plea, that the record did not show a factual basis for the intent element of theft where the defendant merely admitted to taking car parts belonging to another and the parts were later found in the defendant's garage, there being no indication that the defendant intended to keep the property for any particular length of time). We acknowledge the general statements made in some of our prior cases that possession of stolen property creates an inference supporting a conviction of larceny. See State v. Rosewall, 239 N.W.2d 171, 174 (Iowa 1976); State v. Everett, 157 N.W.2d 144, 146 (Iowa 1968), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hawkins, 203 N.W.2d 555, 556 (Iowa 1973); State v. Brightman, 252 Iowa 1278, 1284, 110 N.W.2d 315, 318 (1961); State v. Girdler, 251 Iowa 868, 873, 102 N.W.2d 877, 879 (1960). In none of these cases, however, was the defendant's intent at issue. In Brightman, a suit stolen from a dry cleaning business was discovered in the defendant's home six months after it had been taken. 252 Iowa at 1280-81, 110 N.W.2d at 316. The defendant claimed that he had purchased the suit from an over-the-road trucker. Id. at 1285, 110 N.W.2d at 319. The element of larceny at issue in this case was whether the defendant took the suit from the cleaners; there was no discussion of his intent. The same analysis is applicable to the Rosewall and Girdler cases; the defendant's intent was not an issue in these cases either. See Rosewall, 239 N.W.2d at 174 (Defendants here challenge only the `taking' element of the larceny charge.); Girdler, 251 Iowa at 872-73, 102 N.W.2d at 879 (discussing sufficiency of the evidence to prove the defendant, an escapee from prison, knew that another escapee had stolen the vehicle in which the defendant was apprehended; the defendant's intent was not mentioned as being in dispute). Finally, we also think the Everett case is not helpful. In that case, the defendant was accused of taking a vehicle from a used car lot. Everett, 157 N.W.2d at 145. The defendant claimed he had borrowed the vehicle from a bartender with whom he was acquainted. Id. at 146. Although the court discusses the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the defendant's intent to steal the vehicle, id., it is apparent from the discussion of the evidence that the real dispute was whether he took the vehicle from the used car lot or legitimately borrowed it from a friend. Thus, the court did not really focus on the precise issue that confronts us in the present case, namely, where there is an admitted taking, is that sufficient, standing alone, to support an inference of an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his vehicle. Because the Brainard and Henning cases are more on point factually and because the courts in those cases focused on the evidence necessary to support a finding of intent, we conclude the principles applied in Brainard and Henning should govern our analysis here. Accordingly, the mere fact that Schminkey took the pickup without the owner's consent does not give rise to an inference that he intended to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. In our search for other facts or circumstances that might reveal Schminkey's intent in taking the pickup, we find none indicating that he intended to do anything more than temporarily use the vehicle to go home or to another bar. Because Schminkey wrecked the pickup before he could dispose of it, we do not have the typical inferences that can be drawn from a defendant's actions subsequent to the taking. Compare Slay, 241 So.2d at 364 (holding the evidence was insufficient to prove that the defendant had an intent to permanently deprive the owner of his car, stating the extent of damage to the car was of no probative value on the issue of specific intent, since its wrecking was not purposeful), with People v. Graham, 27 Ill.App.3d 408, 327 N.E.2d 261, 264 (1975) (finding evidence of intent to permanently deprive owner of vehicle sufficient where defendant had changed the license plates on the car); State v. Keeler, 238 Kan. 356, 710 P.2d 1279, 1283 (1985) (holding evidence sufficient to prove intent to permanently deprive owner of car where defendant used the vehicle for several days and then abandoned it); State v. Winkelmann, 761 S.W.2d 702, 708 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (finding sufficient evidence of an intent to permanently deprive owner of her car where the defendant intentionally drove the car into a brick wall, inflicting severe damage to the vehicle). Furthermore, the record contains no admissions by the defendant or statements from other witnesses that would indicate Schminkey's purpose in taking the vehicle. Under these circumstances, we conclude the record does not show a factual basis for Schminkey's guilty plea to the charge of theft of a motor vehicle.