holding defendant’s agreement with trial court’s incorrect statement that defendant had waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment did not operate as a waiver of that right
How later courts described this case
- holding defendant’s agreement with trial court’s incorrect statement that defendant had waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment did not operate as a waiver of that right
- holding substantial compliance is the measure for judging whether the requirements of rule 2.8(2)(6) have been met
- holding substantial compliance is the measure for judging whether the requirements of rule 2.8(2)(b) have been met
- “[The defendant] will not be allowed to plead anew merely because he was informed of the matters listed in rule [2.8(2)(b)] in writing instead of orally.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*810 NEUMAN, Justice
(dissenting)
I respectfully dissent.
The directive of Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 8(2)(b), as interpreted by this court in State v. Fluhr, is plain: It is the court’s duty to inform the defendant of the trial rights being waived upon plea of guilty to a crime more onerous than a serious misdemeanor. One may question the wisdom of such a rule, given the fact that counsel is supposedly retained to impart the same information. Commending the rule, however, is the likelihood that it will pay delayed dividends by reducing postconviction claims of ineffective counsel.
Instead of resolving these opposing views by rule change, the majority has simply rewritten the rule to its liking. Substituting one shortcut for another, the majority excuses the trial court’s error and dumps a decade of precedent in the process. I would reverse and remand for the procedure guaranteed this defendant by rule.