IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1640
Filed October 9, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RICKY TIMOTHY WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Nancy A. Baumgartner,
Judge.
Ricky Williams appeals following his guilty plea to attempting to elude, a
drug tax stamp violation, interference with official acts, possession of cocaine, and
possession of marijuana. AFFIRMED.
Jonathon Muñoz of Nidey, Erdahl, Fisher, Pilkington & Meier PLC, Cedar
Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Ricky Williams pled guilty in a single proceeding to several crimes arising
from two incidents.1 The district court accepted the plea and imposed sentence in
both cases. On direct appeal, Williams argues he “was not informed that he would
have to pay attorney fees in [the older case].” In his view, the claimed omission
amounted to a violation of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.8(2)(b)(2) and State
v. Weitzel, 905 N.W.2d 397, 408 (Iowa 2017).
The State does not contest error preservation.2 Accordingly, we proceed to
the merits.
Rule 2.8(2)(b)(2) states:
b. Pleas of guilty. . . . Before accepting a plea of guilty, the
court must address the defendant personally in open court and
inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant
understands, the following:
....
(2) The mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and
the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute
defining the offense to which the plea is offered.
By its terms, the rule applies to “punishment.”
In Weitzel, the court held “surcharges constitute punishment.” 905 N.W.2d
at 408. The court did not address attorney fees.
The court did address attorney fees in State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 686
(Iowa 2016). There, the court distinguished surcharges “from other court-ordered
1
The charges were filed in FECR122130 and FECR127948.
2
Williams argues he may challenge the guilty plea on direct appeal even though he failed
to satisfy the general prerequisite of filing a motion in arrest of judgment. He asserts the
obligation to file a motion in arrest of judgment before appealing is inapplicable because
the district court did not inform him “that failure to so raise such challenges shall preclude
the right to assert them on appeal.” Williams cites Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
2.8(2)(d) and State v. Meron, 675 N.W.2d 537, 540 (Iowa 2004). The State raises no
counter-argument to these assertions.
3
payments, such as . . . reimbursement for the cost of court-appointed counsel.”
Fisher, 877 N.W.2d at 676. The court stated, “The latter items are compensatory
and ‘[do] not fit the generally understood definition of punishment.’” Id. (citation
omitted). In light of Fisher, the district court had no duty to inform Williams about
his obligation to pay attorney fees.
Williams also argues the time between approval of the minutes of testimony
and the plea hearing was insufficient to facilitate a thorough discussion of the case
with counsel and “to permit defense counsel to discharge his duty to ensure that a
factual basis existed for the guilty plea.” The record is inadequate to address this
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Accordingly, we preserve the issue for
possible postconviction relief.
We affirm Williams’s plea and sentences for attempting to elude, a drug tax
stamp violation, interference with official acts, possession of cocaine, and
possession of marijuana.
AFFIRMED.