Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

326 N.W.2d 316

State v. West

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided November 24, 1982

Supreme Court of Iowa · decided 1982-11-24

Relies on State v. Woolsey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1982-11-24

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 2001

4 state decisions

20198219902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

CARTER, Justice

¶1(dissenting).

¶2I dissent. We recognized in State v. Woosley, 240 N.W.2d 651, 653 (Iowa 1976) that the court is not required to inform a defendant of a mandatory sentence as a condition precedent to acceptance of a guilty plea. An inescapable consequence of that holding is a possibility that a defendant may in fact believe that there is a possibility of probation where none exists. Conversely, it is also possible that there was in fact no misunderstanding on defendant’s part.

¶3On the present record, I find no action of the trial court from which it may be determined on direct appeal that defendant was in fact mislead in this regard. I believe that under such circumstances he must offer proof that he was mislead in order to be entitled to relief from the judgment. Absent such a showing on the record in a direct appeal, our disposition should be to affirm the judgment without prejudice to defendant’s right to raise the issue by means of an application for postconviction relief.

¶4LeGRAND, J., joins in this dissent.

/326/nw2d/316 · .json · Public domain