State of Iowa v. Dionte Williams ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0190
Filed May 11, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DIONTE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Marlita A. Greve
(guilty plea) and Henry W. Latham II (sentencing), Judges.
A defendant appeals the judgment entered and the sentence imposed on
a possession-of-marijuana charge. CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE
VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Courtney T. Wilson of Gomez May, L.L.P., Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., Tabor, J., and Goodhue, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
GOODHUE, Senior Judge.
Dionte Williams pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance,
marijuana; possession with intent to deliver, cocaine; and driving under
suspension while barred as an habitual offender. Williams was sentenced to one
year on the possession-of-marijuana charge, two years on the driving-under-
suspension charge, and ten years on the possession-with-intent-to-deliver-
cocaine charge. All sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Williams was
committed to the custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections. Williams has
appealed only the plea entered and the sentence imposed on the marijuana-
possession charge.
I. Facts
At the plea hearing, the court advised Williams he could “be put into jail for
a period not to exceed six months” on the possession-of-marijuana charge. After
the plea was entered, the court sentenced him to one year in jail on that charge.
On appeal, Williams claims an illegal sentence was imposed and counsel was
ineffective in allowing him to plead guilty without a proper colloquy or information
as to the maximum length of a possible sentence on the possession-of-marijuana
charge. No motion for arrest of judgment was made.
II. Error Preservation
Error preservation rules are generally not applicable to an illegal or
defective sentence. State v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 311, 312 (Iowa Ct. App.
1994). An illegal sentence can be corrected at any time. Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.24(5)(a). Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are also an exception to
3
the rules regarding error preservation. State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263
(Iowa 2010).
III. Scope of Review
A challenge to the legality of a sentence is reviewed for errors of law.
State v. Carstens, 594 N.W.2d 436, 437 (Iowa 1999). Ineffective-assistance-of-
counsel claims raise constitutional issues and are reviewed de novo. Lamasters
v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012).
IV. Discussion
Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2013) provides that it is unlawful for a
person to possess a controlled substance, with certain exceptions not applicable
here, and “[i]f the controlled substance is marijuana, the punishment shall be by
imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months.” The court imposed
a sentence of one year of incarceration on the possession-of-marijuana charge.
The State concedes this was in error. Because the sentence was ordered to run
concurrent with the ten-year sentence for possession with intent to deliver
cocaine, the commitment to the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections
was appropriate. See Iowa Code § 901.7.
Williams contends counsel was ineffective for allowing him to plead guilty
without the court having advised him of the maximum sentence that could be
imposed.1 During the plea colloquy, the court specifically advised Williams that
he could be jailed “for a period not to exceed six months” on the possession-of-
marijuana charge. The court set out the other penalties that could be imposed
1
The State’s brief addresses the court’s colloquy on the driving-while-barred charge, but
the plea to that charge was not raised as an issue by Williams in his brief.
4
on that charge before asking Williams, “Do you understand the maximum
penalties at this time associated with pleading guilty to that charge?” Williams
answered, “Yes.” Although error was committed in imposing the sentence, the
court’s plea colloquy properly stated the maximum sentence. Because the court
did not err in advising Williams of the maximum sentence on the possession-of-
marijuana charge, Williams’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to make a
meritless claim. See State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 171 (Iowa 2011).
V. Disposition
When the plea is valid and only the sentence is illegal, the appropriate
remedy is to vacate the illegal sentence and remand for imposition of a correct
sentence. State v. Rudy, 613 N.W.2d 215, 218 (Iowa 2000). The one-year
sentence imposed on the possession-of-marijuana charge is vacated, and we
remand for entry of a corrected sentencing order in accordance with this opinion.
Otherwise, this matter is affirmed.
CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.