IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-2100
Filed February 24, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAYMES ANTHONY STARK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Michael J.
Schilling (plea) and John G. Linn (sentencing), Judges.
Jaymes Anthony Stark appeals from the judgment, conviction, and
sentence imposed after pleading guilty to second-degree criminal mischief.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., McDonald, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
GOODHUE, Senior Judge.
Jaymes Anthony Stark pled guilty to a charge of criminal mischief in the
second degree. He now appeals from the resulting judgment, conviction, and
sentence imposed.
I. Factual Background
Law enforcement officers were called to a residence located on Bank
Street in Keokuk on August 27, 2013. On arrival they discovered that Mary
Stark’s automobile and the house, owned by Pat Morgan, had both been
damaged. It was determined that Anthony Stark was responsible.
A trial information was filed charging Stark with criminal mischief in the
second degree and harassment in the first degree. Only the criminal mischief
charge is challenged in this appeal. The trial information alleged that “the cost to
repair or replace said property exceeds one thousand but not ten thousand
dollars.” Attached to the minutes were estimates showing the cost to repair the
damage was $1394.88.
Stark pled guilty to criminal mischief in the second degree as charged.
During the plea proceeding, the prosecutor set out the factual basis of the charge
levied. He stated the damage to be $1394.88, and counsel for Stark
acknowledged the prosecutor’s rendition of the factual basis. The court directly
asked Stark if the damage to the vehicle was approximately $1395, and Stark
answered “yes.”
As a part of the plea agreement, Stark agreed to reimburse the victims for
their losses. A statement of pecuniary damages was filed showing a loss of $500
3
to the victims. The presentence investigation report also indicated the pecuniary
loss to be $250 to Mary Stark and $250 to Pat Morgan for a total of $500.
Stark’s counsel did not file a motion in arrest of judgment. Stark contends
that such a motion should have been filed alleging his plea to second-degree
criminal mischief lacked a factual basis based on the statement of pecuniary
damages, which shows the victims’ damages to be less than $1000. See Iowa
Code § 716.4 (2013) (defining second-degree criminal mischief as criminal
mischief where the cost of replacing, repairing, or restoring the property exceeds
$1000 but does not exceed $10,000). Stark has appealed, claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel.
II. Error Preservation and Scope of Review
Ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims are an exception to the error-
preservation requirement. State v. Keene, 630 N.W.2d 579, 581 (Iowa 2001).
When the claim is based on counsel permitting a defendant to plead guilty when
no factual basis existed, the review is de novo. Id. Generally, the trial record is
inadequate to resolve a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. State v.
Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa 2006). As to the issue raised in this direct
appeal, the record made on the entry of the guilty plea is adequate to dispose of
the claim.
III. Discussion
Stark’s claim is meritless. The pecuniary damage report and the
presentence investigation report relate to the amount of restitution that can be
entered as against Stark to compensate the victims. See State v. Hagen, 840
N.W.2d 140, 147 (Iowa 2013) (“One purpose of restitution is to compensate
4
victims of crime.”). The legislature has defined “pecuniary damages” to mean “all
damages to the extent not paid by an insurer.” Iowa Code § 910.1(3). The
pecuniary damage claim is the amount of restitution that a defendant may be
required to pay and is determined ancillary to a plea or finding of guilt. See id.
§ 910.3. Accordingly, it does not and cannot affect the preexisting charge levied
and disposed of by a plea or finding. It would be strange indeed to think the
legislature intended to control the degree of a crime by the amount of the victim’s
insurance.
It is the duty of the court to establish the factual basis before accepting a
plea of guilty. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.8(2)(b). In determining whether a factual basis
exists, the entire record before the court is considered. State v. Brooks, 555
N.W.2d 446, 448-49 (Iowa 1996). In this case, the factual basis was reflected in
the minutes attached to the trial information, the statement of the prosecutor
affirmed by Stark’s counsel, and by Stark’s own affirmation. Counsel has no
obligation to pursue a meritless claim. State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 171
(Iowa 2011). Stark’s request to vacate his conviction and remand the case to the
district court is denied.
AFFIRMED.