IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1192
Filed March 22, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
STEVEN M. SIFUENTES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Rustin T.
Davenport, Judge.
The defendant appeals his convictions for domestic abuse assault,
burglary in the third degree, and domestic abuse assault as a third or subsequent
offense. AFFIRMED.
Sarah A. Reindl of Reindl Law Firm, Mason City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Steven Sifuentes pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault, burglary in the
third degree, and domestic abuse assault as a third or subsequent offense.
Sifuentes seeks to vacate his convictions. Sifuentes contends that his guilty
pleas were not knowing and voluntary in a variety of ways and for a variety of
reasons and that his plea counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance
in allowing Sifuentes to plead guilty under the circumstances.
Sifuentes’ direct challenge to his guilty plea is barred. To challenge a
guilty plea, the defendant is required to file a motion in arrest of judgment. See
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3). The district court shall thereafter determine if “upon the
whole record no legal judgment can be pronounced.” Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.24(3)(a). “A defendant’s failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea
proceeding by motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the defendant’s right to
assert such challenge on appeal.” Id. Sifuentes was informed of the requirement
he file a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge his guilty plea, and he was
informed of the consequences for failing to do so. Despite being correctly
advised, Sifuentes did not file a motion in arrest of judgment. Sifuentes’ claim is
therefore barred. See State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 680 (Iowa 2016).
Sifuentes contends his counsel provided ineffective assistance in allowing
Sifuentes to plead guilty under the circumstances. Additionally, Sifuentes argues
his counsel was ineffective for failing to file the motion in arrest of judgment. See
State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 132–33 (Iowa 2006) (holding while failure to file
a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge a guilty a plea bars a direct appeal of
conviction, “this failure does not bar a challenge to a guilty plea if the failure to file
3
a motion in arrest of judgment resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel”).
To prove ineffective assistance of counsel, Sifuentes is required to show both
that his attorney breached an essential duty and Sifuentes was prejudiced as a
result of his attorney’s actions or omissions. See id. at 133. This requires a
showing that Sifuentes would have insisted upon going to trial. See id.
We preserve Sifuentes’ claims for postconviction-relief proceedings to
allow him the opportunity to develop an adequate record for resolution of his
claims on the merits. See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010)
(stating if there is not an adequate record to reach the merits of an ineffective-
assistance-of-counsel claim on direct appeal, “the court must preserve it for a
postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the potential
viability of the claim”).
We therefore affirm Sifuentes’ convictions and preserve his challenges to
his guilty pleas for postconviction-relief proceedings.
AFFIRMED.
State of Iowa v. Steven M. Sifuentes
Combined Opinion