 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Njenga6/15/2005
David Kiarie Njenga appeals following his conviction for operating while intoxicated, second offense. AFFIRMED.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer, J., and Hendrickson, S.J.
Defendant David Kiarie Njenga appeals from the judgment and sentence imposed following his conviction for operating while intoxicated (OWI), second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2003). He claims his waiver of counsel during a guilty plea to an OWI offense in Minnesota in 2001 was inadequate under the Iowa Constitution. Njenga argues his Minnesota conviction should not have been used to enhance his subsequent OWI conviction in Iowa. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
On November 7, 2003, a police officer observed a car being driven well above the speed limit in Clive, Iowa. The officer followed the car into a parking lot and pulled in behind it. The officer planned on giving the driver a verbal warning for speeding. However, before that could happen, the driver parked his vehicle in a no-parking zone and ran away. Following a brief foot chase, the officer apprehended the driver, who was later identified as David Njenga. The officer arrested Njenga for interference with official acts and driving while suspended. Further investigation revealed that Njenga had been driving while intoxicated.
On December 8, 2003, the State filed a trial information formally charging Njenga with OWI, second offense. Njenga filed a Motion to Strike Prior Conviction. He argued that his prior OWI conviction in Minnesota could not be used to enhance his current offense because it was the result of an uncounseled guilty plea for which there was an invalid waiver of counsel. Following a hearing, the district court denied Njenga's motion.
On March 26, 2004, Njenga waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial on the minutes of testimony. The district court found Njenga guilty as charged and sentenced him to two years in prison with all but seven days suspended. Njenga was also placed on supervised probation for two years and was ordered to participate in any recommended programming and treatment. This appeal followed.
II. Scope of Review
Because this appeal turns on a constitutional issue we review the record de novo and evaluate the totality of the circumstances. State v. Nelson, 390 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Iowa 1986).
III. Discussion
On appeal, Njenga reasserts his claim that his 2001 OWI conviction in Minnesota cannot be used to enhance his current offense to second-offense OWI because his plea of guilty in the Minnesota case was uncounseled. He argues the Minnesota court did not conduct the inquiry required for a valid waiver of counsel under the Iowa Constitution. We find no merit to Njenga's challenge to his current judgment and sentence.
In State v. Tovar, 656 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2003), overruled by Iowa v. Tovar, 541 U.S. 77, 124 S.Ct. 1379, 158 L.Ed. 2d 209 (2004), our state supreme court set forth the admonitions a court is required to give to an accused in order to obtain a valid waiver of counsel. Njenga acknowledges the United States Supreme Court subsequently held that the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution did not require two of those admonitions. Nevertheless, Njenga invites us to hold that the Iowa Constitution requires prior uncounseled pleas to include all of the admonitions required by State v. Tovar and therefore confers a greater right to counsel than the Sixth Amendment.
In response, the State suggests that a recent decision from our supreme court, State v. Allen, 690 N.W.2d 684 (Iowa 2005), compels a different result. In Allen, ou
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|