State v. Van Haaften

Full title: STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SEAN LEE VAN HAAFTEN…

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa

Date published: Jul 10, 2003

No. 3-454 / 02-2102 (Iowa Ct. App. Jul. 10, 2003)

Opinion

No. 3-454 / 02-2102

Filed July 10, 2003

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Louise M. Jacobs and Carol S. Egly, District Associate Judges.

Defendant appeals from a judgment and conviction entered following his plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent. AFFIRMED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Teresa Vens, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and Eisenhauer, JJ.

EISENHAUER, J.

Sean Van Haaften appeals from a judgment and conviction entered following his plea of guilty to operating a motor vehicle without the owner's consent, in violation of Iowa Code section 714.7 (2001). He contends his counsel was ineffective in failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment based on the involuntary and unintelligent nature of the plea. He contends his plea was not voluntary because it was motivated by his not being medicated for various mental illnesses while in the Polk County Jail. He claims his decision to plead guilty was based upon his desire to obtain medication for his mental health problems. He argues the circumstances of his confinement were tantamount to coercion rendering his plea involuntary. We review his claim de novo. See State v. Allison, 576 N.W.2d 371, 373 (Iowa 1998).

To succeed with a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a claimant must prove two elements. State v. McBride, 625 N.W.2d 372, 373 (Iowa Ct.App. 2001). First, he must show that counsel failed to perform an essential duty. Id. Second, he must prove he was prejudiced by counsel's error. Id. We can affirm on appeal if either element is lacking. Id. Typically, these claims are preserved for possible postconviction proceedings, to allow a full development of the record regarding counsel's actions. State v. DeCamp, 622 N.W.2d 290, 296 (Iowa 2001). Because the record is not sufficient to resolve this claim on direct appeal, we preserve it for postconviction proceedings to allow full development of the facts. State v. Atley, 564 N.W.2d 817, 833 (Iowa 1997). "Even a lawyer is

entitled to his day in court, especially when professional reputation is impugned." State v. Coil, 264 N.W.2d 293, 296 (Iowa 1978).

AFFIRMED.