Court Opinion

ID: 9689575
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:40:29.73784+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.517752
License: Public Domain

LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the judgment of the trial ■ court should be affirmed. But I disagree with division I of the majority opinion which strikes down a significant and useful part of our holding in State v. Reaves, 254 N.W.2d 488, 493 (Iowa 1977). I would hold that the defendant, by failing to make the same claim in the trial court, did not preserve the question for review.
The Reaves requirement which the majority nullifies provided: “In any appeal . an accused challenging the ade*331quacy of his guilty plea proceeding must first present such claim to the trial court in a motion in arrest of judgment under chapter 788, The Code. Reaves, supra, 254 N.W.2d at 493. This is consistent with the fundamental philosophy underlying preservation of error. It is almost universally held that issues not presented in trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Lemburg, 257 N.W.2d 39, 46 (Iowa 1977). This applies as well to constitutional as to other questions. State v. Washington, 257 N.W.2d 890, 895 (Iowa 1977).
Strong policy considerations support the rule. Fairness to the trial courts is often mentioned. See Rendleman, Appeal Taken Without Objection to Error: Scope of Review in Criminal Appeals and the Judgment on the Record Statute, 22 Drake L.Rev. 477, 483 (1973). However, the requirement is grounded on a much broader and firmer base. Matters pointed out to the trial court often can be easily explained. If error has occurred, the trial court should be given a chance to correct it. If necessary, withdrawal of the plea could be allowed without investing the time and funds required for an appeal.
The advent of the criminal code revision did not wipe out these considerations. Neither does it demand that we abandon the requirement. The real problem arises in the present case because the defendant was sentenced on the same day he entered his plea, a practice which has long been discouraged. The possibility of challenge to the guilty plea is just one more reason trial courts should normally set the trial for sentencing in such a way as to allow the filing of a motion attacking the proceeding.
Our long and difficult experiences in guilty plea proceedings, explained in Reaves, supra, are a clear indication that we should hesitate before we so summarily reject and abandon the rule of that case.
The trial court should be affirmed because the defendant did not make this claim to the trial court.
REES and HARRIS, JJ., join in this special concurrence.