IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 14–0812
Filed May 25, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
CORDARREL DONTYA SMITH,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County,
Bradley J. Harris, Judge.
The State of Iowa seeks further review of a court of appeals
decision on discretionary review reversing the district court’s denial of
Cordarrel Smith’s motion to dismiss. DECISION OF COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND
CASE REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Zorana Wortham-White of Wortham-White Law Office, Waterloo,
for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Kevin Cmelik,
and Alexandra Link (until withdrawal), Assistant Attorneys General, and
Brian J. Williams and Tom Ferguson (until withdrawal), County
2
Attorneys, and Linda M. Fangman (until withdrawal), Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Alan R. Ostergren, Muscatine, for amicus curiae, Iowa County
Attorneys Association.
3
CADY, Chief Justice.
In this case, we consider whether the speedy indictment rule
requires the dismissal of a trial information against a defendant filed
more than forty-five days after the defendant was taken into custody,
interrogated, and released without the filing of a criminal complaint. The
district court held the rule did not require the charges to be dismissed.
The court of appeals, ruling on case precedent, reversed the district
court. On further review, we vacate the court of appeals and affirm the
district court. We conclude the speedy indictment rule is properly
interpreted to commence upon arrest only when the arrest is completed
by making an initial appearance.
This case arises out of the same facts and presents the same
issues addressed in a companion case also decided today, State v.
Williams, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2017).
On November 1, 2013, a Black Hawk County attorney filed a trial
information accusing Deantay Williams, Taevon Washington, Cordarrel
Smith, and a fourth male with sexual abuse in the second-degree under
Iowa Code section 709.3(3) (2011). The fourth male pled guilty.
Williams, Washington, and Smith filed a motion to dismiss for violation
of their speedy indictment rights. The district court held a hearing and
denied the motions. The district court drew a distinction between an
arrest under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and an arrest
under our speedy indictment rule. Williams, Washington, and Smith
filed for discretionary review. In the meantime, the State filed amended
charges against Williams, Washington, and Smith. We granted the
requests for discretionary review, stayed the proceedings before the
district court, and transferred the cases to the court of appeals. Smith
moved to dismiss the amended charges. This motion was denied, and he
4
applied for discretionary review. We granted the application and
consolidated his appeals. The court of appeals reversed the district court
decisions, found Smith’s rights were violated under the speedy
indictment rule, and remanded the case for dismissal of the November 1,
2013 trial information and the amended charges. The court of appeals
relied on case precedent, interpreting the speedy indictment rule to find
the time to file an indictment commenced on June 10, 2012, when Smith
reasonably believed he had been arrested. We granted further review.
Based on the reasoning in Williams, ___ N.W.2d ___, we vacate the
court of appeals decision and affirm the judgment of the district court.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED AND CASE REMANDED FOR
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS.
Waterman, Mansfield, and Zager, JJ., join this opinion. Wiggins,
J., files a dissenting opinion. Hecht, J., files a separate dissenting
opinion in which Appel and Wiggins, JJ., join.
This opinion shall not be published.
5
#14–0812, State v. Smith
WIGGINS, Justice (dissenting).
I join Justice Hecht’s dissent and dissent for the reasons explained
in my dissent filed today in State v. Williams, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2017).
6
#14–0812, State v. Smith
HECHT, Justice (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent for the reasons explained in my dissent filed
today in State v. Williams, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2017).
Wiggins and Appel, JJ., join this dissent.