holding, in challenge to a guilty plea, that the record did not show a factual basis for the intent element of theft where the defendant merely admitted to taking car parts belonging to another and the parts were later found in the defendant's garage, there being no indication that the defendant intended to keep the property for any particular length of time
How later courts described this case
- holding, in challenge to a guilty plea, that the record did not show a factual basis for the intent element of theft where the defendant merely admitted to taking car parts belonging to another and the parts were later found in the defendant's garage, there being no indication that the defendant intended to keep the property for any particular length of time
- stating “trial courts in this state must determine on the record that a factual basis for the plea exists before the plea is accepted”
- noting our rules “preclude[] the use of presentence reports in determining whether a factual basis exists unless the report should be available at the time of the plea hearing”
- “a defendant’s equivocal remarks concerning his intent will not negate the determination of a factual basis ... if th[at] determination [is] otherwise supported by the record”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by State v. Kirchoff, 1990 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 63 (1990)
287 N.W.2d 857, 868 (Iowa 1980), overruled on other grounds by State v. Kirchoff, 452 N.W.2d 801, 804
The opinion
LeGRAND, Justice
(concurring specially).
Although I agree with much of the dissent and disagree with most of the majority opinion, I find no escape from the language of Iowa R.Crim.P. 8(2), which I believe dictates the result. I therefore concur in the result.