 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] State v. Nikkel6/3/1999
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia M. Moisan and Douglas Staskal, District Associate Judges.
Defendant challenges ruling on motion to suppress in connection with conviction for operating while intoxicated. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Considered by McGiverin, C.J., and Harris, Lavorato, Neuman, and Cady, JJ.
This appeal by defendant, Terry Nikkel, challenges his conviction of operating while intoxicated in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (1997). His conviction rests on a pleading captioned "Petition to Stipulate to a Finding of Guilt." This hybridization of a guilty plea and bench trial is nowhere authorized by rule or statute. We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I. Following his arrest and arraignment on the charge of drunk driving , Nikkel filed a motion to suppress. His motion alleged that he was unlawfully denied the assistance of counsel before performing (and failing) field sobriety tests by the roadside. The arresting officer did not recall a request by Nikkel for counsel at the scene but testified that Nikkel made no less than nine calls to counsel after he was taken into custody and transported to the police station. Based on this record, the district court denied Nikkel's motion to suppress, finding no denial of right to counsel before implied consent was invoked under Iowa Code section 321J.6. See Iowa Code § 804.20 (peace officer taking person into custody shall permit that person, after arrival at place of detention, to call and consult with family and/or attorney); State v. Krebs, 562 N.W.2d 423, 426 (Iowa 1997) (protection of section 804.20 applies when person taken into custody, not during investigatory phase of detention).
Thereafter Nikkel appeared in court and filed a pleading called "Petition to Stipulate to a Finding of Guilt." At the bottom of the form was the following notation: "Defendant reserves his right to file a timely motion to reconsider his motion to suppress heard by Judge Moisan." It appears that at the time the document was tendered, Nikkel was joined in court by several other defendants who intended to enter guilty pleas. This no doubt explains the court's initial belief that Nikkel, too, was there to enter a guilty plea. Defense counsel corrected this misperception, as the following colloquy reveals:
MR. SINCLAIR: "Excuse me, Your Honor. I believe that is to stipulate to a finding of guilt rather than a plea on Mr. Nikkel." THE COURT: "All right. That's correct." ". . . ." THE COURT: "And, Mr. Nikkel, you're stipulating to me determining whether or not you are guilty based on a review of the evidence the State would present at trial-" DEFENDANT NIKKEL: "Yes, sir." THE COURT: "-if there were a trial?" DEFENDANT NIKKEL: "Yes, Your Honor."
Thereafter the court signed Nikkel's "petition" and announced on the record that "based on the Minutes of Testimony, the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Nikkel is guilty of first offense drunk driving ." A future date for sentencing was scheduled.
At sentencing counsel made no attempt to clarify the status of the proceedings when the court stated, "Terry Nikkel . . . you're here today for sentencing, in your case having previously pled guilty, Mr. Nikkel, on January 20 . . . ." (Emphasis added.) The written sentencing order likewise shows a check beside the box marked "defendant previously pled guilty to the above-named charges." The court sentenced Nikkel to seven days in the Polk County jail, fined him $1000 plus costs, ordered substance abuse counseling, and revoked his driver's license. This appeal by Nikkel followed.
II. Nikkel's appeal challenges the court's re
Page 1 2 3 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|