Opinion ID: 1928561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Did Adams Make a Valid Waiver of His Right to a Preliminary Hearing?

Text: Adams' final claim is based on his waiver of a preliminary hearing. He claims this waiver, made at his initial appearance, was unconstitutional because he had no counsel at his initial appearance. A preliminary hearing, he argues, would have revealed the State's case was insufficient as a matter of law. Adams requests we rule that the manner in which Polk County obtains waivers of a defendant's right to a preliminary hearing be held unconstitutional. He requests no other relief. We review this constitutional claim de novo. White, 545 N.W.2d at 554. [A] preliminary hearing relates only to [the] legality of detention of one accused of a felony or indictable misdemeanor before he has been charged by either information or indictment. State v. Franklin, 163 N.W.2d 437, 439 (Iowa 1968). At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate must determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it. Iowa R.Crim.P. 2(4)(b). If the magistrate finds probable cause, the defendant is held to answer in further proceedings; otherwise, the complaint is dismissed and the defendant discharged. Iowa R.Crim.P. 2(4)(b), (e). The remedy for a violation of rights at the arrest and probable cause stage of criminal proceedings is release from detention, not dismissal of the charge. State v. Dowell, 297 N.W.2d 93, 97 (Iowa 1980). A defendant must still answer the charge. Id. Even if prejudice affecting the merits of the charge resulted, this fact would not necessarily bar conviction. See id. In Dowell, the defendant's right to a prompt probable cause hearing was denied. Id. at 96. We noted the defendant had neither alleged nor shown any resulting prejudice affecting the merits of the charge against him. Id. at 98. Under these circumstances, we affirmed the defendant's conviction. Id. The same rationale applies here. Even if we assume Adams' alleged rights were violated, we are not convinced he suffered any prejudice to the merits of his case. Adams claims prejudice in three ways: a preliminary hearing would have led to the discovery (1) the State's case was insufficient as a matter of law; (2) bond was set inappropriately as a result; and (3) the information would have to be amended or dismissed. These arguments apparently refer to the fact the State originally mischarged the defendant with a class B felony based on a misapprehension as to the weight of the drugs he possessed. When the drugs found on Adams were initially weighed, they weighed 6.5 grams in the plastic bag. Based on this information, the State charged Adams with a violation of section 124.401(1)(b)(3), unlawful possession of more than five grams but less than fifty grams of cocaine base with intent to deliver, a class B felony. When the cocaine was later weighed without the plastic bag, the weight was 4.69 grams. The State then amended the trial information to reduce the crime charged from a class B felony to the class C felony of which Adams was ultimately convicted. We fail to understand how this series of events, regardless of its effect on the original class B felony charge and the bond set by the court, affected the merits of the class C felony charge. Absent any prejudice, Adams is not entitled to the only relief pertinent to this appeal, namely, reversal of his conviction. We decline his invitation to issue an advisory ruling on the constitutionality of the procedures followed by the county attorney's office where such a ruling has no effect in the case before us.