Opinion
No. 6-253 / 05-1360
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla, Judge.
Artrice Martin appeals from his conviction for operating while intoxicated — third offense. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Arthur Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas S. Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, Harold Denton, County Attorney, and Susan Nehring, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ
A jury found Artrice Martin guilty of operating while intoxicated (OWI). After the jury entered its verdict, the district court accepted defense counsel's verbal stipulation to Martin's two prior OWI convictions. The court imposed sentence and Martin appealed.
On appeal, Martin contends the district court "had a duty to conduct a colloquy" to ensure that Martin understood the consequences of the stipulation. He characterizes this issue as a sentencing error which may be raised at any time. See State v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). The State counters that the issue does not implicate an illegal sentence. We agree with the State. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.19(9) prescribes the process for bringing prior convictions to the court's attention. By its terms, the process takes place "prior to pronouncement of sentence." Therefore, a challenge to the process is not a challenge to a defendant's sentence and such a challenge cannot be raised at any time.
Anticipating this conclusion, Martin also contends we may analyze the issue he raises under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric. See State v. Lucas, 323 N.W.2d 228, 232 (Iowa 1982) (stating ineffective assistance of counsel is an exception to error preservation rules). We agree, but find the record inadequate to address the merits. Accordingly, we preserve for postconviction relief proceedings the question of whether defense counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the adequacy of the court's colloquy with Martin about the stipulation to his prior OWI convictions.