Opinion ID: 2039246
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Penal Consequences of Plea.

Text: One of the requirements to the entry of a valid guilty plea is that the accused knows the possible sentences which the court may impose. State v. Brant, 268 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa filed July 26, 1978); State v. Rand, 268 N.W.2d 642 (Iowa filed July 26, 1978); Brainard v. State, 222 N.W.2d 711, 713 (Iowa 1974); State v. Sisco, 169 N.W.2d 542, 547-48 (Iowa 1969). This requirement was satisfied in the present case by the trial court's inquiry at the time the guilty plea was accepted. The court asked plaintiff (defendant there) if his attorney had advised him concerning the possible sentences which could be imposed. Plaintiff answered that he had. The situation is similar to the one we faced in State v. Reppert, 215 N.W.2d 302, 307 (Iowa 1974), where we said: As noted, Reppert answered [in response to the trial court's inquiry] that he understood the possible penalties. Defendant's positive assertion he possessed an awareness of the possible penalties made further inquiry along this line by the trial court unnecessary.    The question is not whether defendant learned of such penalty from the judge in a formal proceeding, but whether he had knowledge of such matter, whether it was from the judge, his lawyer or from some other source. There was no error here.