Opinion ID: 1845177
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Should the Information Have Been Dismissed?

Text: At least where a bill of particulars has not been furnished voluntarily by the prosecution or ordered by the court on its own motion, such a bill on defendant's motion is a prerequisite to a rule 10(6)(a) dismissal motion. See Iowa R.Crim.P. 10(6)(a); State v. Wilt, 333 N.W.2d 457, 460 (Iowa 1983); State v. Graham, 291 N.W.2d 345, 350 (Iowa 1980). Defendant in this case did not file a motion for bill of particulars. The information that such a motion would have elicited, however, was furnished by stipulation of the partiesthe disposition of the two prior offenses, charged as prior convictions in the trial information. [1] We believe nonetheless the motion to dismiss should have been overruled because the number of defendant's previous offenses is not an element of the current OWI charge, but goes instead only to the penalty once the defendant is found guilty. See State v. Miller, 204 N.W.2d 834, 837 (Iowa 1973) (The offense under section 321.281 involves [only] two elements: intoxication of the driver and his act of operating a motor vehicle while so intoxicated.); State v. Robinson, 165 N.W.2d 802, 804 (Iowa 1969) ([A]n allegation of prior conviction does not create a separate crime but is made only for the purpose of the penalty imposed.); cf. State v. Tobin, 333 N.W.2d 842, 845 (Iowa 1983) (The prior convictions are a predicate for enhanced punishment rather than elements of the current ... charge.) (interpreting Iowa Code section 714.2 dealing with second-degree theft). Because the facts are undisputed, trial court might have treated the motion for dismissal as a motion for adjudication of law points, Wilt, 333 N.W.2d at 460, and then determined whether the deferred sentence could be used under the provisions of rule 6(5), Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure, to enhance punishment. If it could not be employed for that purpose, the court might have ordered the information amended. Where, however, a charge has been dismissed erroneously before defendant has been placed in jeopardy, the State may appeal, and, if successful, may continue prosecution under the information filed. State v. Edwards, 279 N.W.2d 9, 10 (Iowa 1979). Upon remand, of course, the information filed in this case may be amended to conform to the balance of trial court's ruling and to this opinion. We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal of the trial information.