IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1613
Filed April 19, 2017
DAVON ANTWON WRIGHT,
Defendant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Smith, Judge.
Davon Wright appeals the district court’s denial of his motion in arrest of
judgment. AFFIRMED.
Zeke R. McCartney of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Davon Wright appeals the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. On
March 29, 2016, Wright was driving a van with four passengers around
Davenport. Two passengers stated everyone was smoking marijuana as they
travelled. During the drive, the group saw a car and believed the occupants were
people they did not like. Shots were fired, and Wright drove away. Shortly
thereafter, police attempted to stop the van, but Wright tried to elude the officers
by driving more than ninety miles per hour through Davenport. Eventually,
Wright and the others exited the van, attempted to escape on foot, but were
apprehended. Officers found a gun and marijuana in the van and later found two
other guns on the path taken by those who had fled.
Wright entered a plea of not guilty on April 28, though the trial information
was not accepted until May 5. Wright was charged with interference with official
acts, in violation of Iowa Code sections 719.1(1)(f) and 703.1 (2016), eluding
while participating in a felony, in violation of section 124.401, and possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of section 724.26(1). Wright filed a memorandum
of plea agreement on July 29, stating he would plead guilty to eluding while
participating in a felony as a habitual offender.
Wright pled guilty on August 1. The district court explained the State
would be required to prove that on March 29, 2016, Wright was in Davenport,
driving a vehicle, knew a marked police car was attempting to pull him over, did
not pull over, traveled more than twenty-five miles an hour over the speed limit,
and was transporting marijuana. Wright claims he clearly admitted every
3
element except for the transportation of marijuana. When asked if he had
possession of marijuana, Wright’s attorney stepped in and stated, “there were a
number of people in the car, and some of them were carrying marijuana, as it
turns out, that was found in a search of the various persons when the car was
stopped, so even though he didn’t have it on his person in possession, he was
transporting.”
Before sentencing, Wright’s attorney withdrew. Wright had sent a letter to
the attorney indicating his wish to withdraw the guilty plea and claiming the
attorney was ineffective. The district court approved the withdrawal and
appointed new trial counsel. Wright then mailed a pro se letter to the district
court asking to withdraw his plea, claiming there was new evidence of which he
had not been aware. Trial counsel then filed a supplemental motion in arrest of
judgment on September 9. In the supplemental motion, Wright claimed there
was no factual basis for the plea, the plea was not knowing and voluntary, and
original trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Wright to plead guilty. A hearing
on the motion in arrest of judgment was held September 22. The district court
denied the motion and sentenced Wright to a term not to exceed fifteen years in
prison. Wright now appeals.
All three of Wright’s claims in the supplemental motion rest on the
assertion the plea lacked a factual basis. Wright claims the statements by his
original trial counsel that “as it turns out” marijuana was discovered in the van
and on the person of some of the passengers is not enough to establish
possession. When “evaluating whether a factual basis exists to support a guilty
4
plea, we may examine the minutes of testimony, statements made by the
defendant and the prosecutor at the guilty plea proceeding, and the presentence
investigation report.” State v. Velez, 829 N.W.2d 572, 576 (Iowa 2013) (internal
quotation marks omitted). By itself, the statements might not qualify as a factual
basis. However, the minutes of testimony, available to the district court at the
time of the plea, showed marijuana was found in the van owned by Wright and
two passengers in Wright’s vehicle stated Wright and the passengers were
smoking marijuana in the van prior to the incident. Additionally, Wright
acknowledged in the presentence investigation that people in the car had
marijuana on them and he chose to run from the police due to marijuana and a
firearm being in the car. We find the district court had a sufficient factual basis to
accept the plea, the plea was knowing and voluntary, and Wright’s trial counsel
was not ineffective. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a) and (e), we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Davon Antwon Wright v. State of Iowa
Combined Opinion