IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 15–1630
Filed October 20, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
JOHNNIE RAY STEIGER,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Douglas C.
McDonald and Christine Dalton Ploof, Judges.
Appellant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision
affirming the district court’s imposition of sentence under an
enhancement for repeat offenders. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENTS REVERSED AND
REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kelli Huser, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Josh Sims, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
2
PER CURIAM.
In this case, we must decide if the defendant was denied
procedural protections for determining his status as an habitual offender
at trial and whether he needed to preserve error by filing a motion in
arrest of judgment. On our review of a decision by the court of appeals,
we reverse the judgment and sentences of the district court and remand
for further proceedings.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Johnnie Steiger was charged by two trial informations with two
separate crimes of indecent exposure. The first trial information also
charged Steiger as an habitual offender. This charge proceeded to a
bench trial. The district court found Steiger guilty. Following the
verdict, the prosecutor informed the court he possessed three certified
copies of Steiger’s three prior convictions for indecent exposure. Defense
counsel promptly responded that Steiger would stipulate to two of the
prior convictions. The court acknowledged the stipulation without
further inquiry. It then proceeded to accept Steiger’s plea of guilty to the
second charge of indecent exposure. In doing so, the court failed to
address the particulars of the plea, except to ask Steiger if it was the
result of any threats or promises. The court did not address the
requirements of filing a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge
deficiencies in the plea proceedings.
Steiger was subsequently sentenced in both cases. The court
imposed a ten-year sentence of incarceration for the charge associated
with the enhancement and imposed a one-year sentence on the other
charge of indecent exposure.
Steiger appealed. On appeal, he claimed the district court erred in
accepting the stipulation relating to the prior convictions by failing to
3
engage in a colloquy to determine if his acknowledgement was voluntarily
and intelligently made. He also claimed the plea of guilty to the second
charge of indecent exposure was not knowingly and voluntarily made
and the district court failed to conduct a meaningful colloquy. Steiger
further claimed he was not informed of the requirement to file a motion
in arrest of judgment to challenge any deficiencies in the plea of guilty.
The State acknowledged the plea colloquy was insufficient and the
case needed to be remanded for a new guilty-plea hearing. However, it
claimed the stipulation concerning the prior convictions was sufficient.
It further claimed Steiger failed to preserve error for appeal by
challenging the stipulation in district court.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of
appeals found Steiger failed to preserve error on his claim that the
stipulation concerning the prior convictions was deficient. The court of
appeals held Steiger was required to challenge the sufficiency of the
proceedings either by filing a motion in arrest of judgment or by another
means. Steiger sought, and we granted, further review.
II. Standard of Review.
We review claims involving interpretations of rules for errors of law.
State v. Kukowski, 704 N.W.2d 687, 690–91 (Iowa 2005). To the extent
that our review involves constitutional claims, our review is de novo. Id.
at 690.
III. Resolution of Claims.
The outcome of this case is controlled by our recent decision in
State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 2017). Requirements of the
enhanced-penalty hearing were not followed by the district court in this
case, and the error preservation rule we established in Harrington was
not in existence at the time. Id. at 41–48.
4
IV. Conclusion.
Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse
the judgment and sentences of the district court, and remand both
charges to the district court for further proceedings. The enhanced-
penalty charge is remanded for the district court to conduct a hearing on
the prior convictions pursuant to Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
2.19(9). The remaining charge is remanded to the district court to
conduct a hearing on the plea of guilty.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENTS REVERSED AND REMANDED.