State of Iowa v. Megan Brooks , 922 N.W.2d 105 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 17-1756
    Filed July 5, 2018
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    MEGAN BROOKS,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Richard B. Clogg,
    Judge.
    Megan Brooks appeals her conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to
    one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.
    Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Maria L. Ruhtenberg,
    Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
    2
    DOYLE, Judge.
    Megan Brooks appeals her conviction and sentence after pleading guilty to
    one count of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. She contends
    her trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance. She also contends the trial court
    abused its discretion in sentencing her.
    Law enforcement stopped the vehicle Brooks was driving after receiving an
    anonymous tip that the driver of the vehicle was possibly intoxicated. During the
    stop, a deputy sheriff smelled the odor of marijuana emanating from the vehicle
    and saw a glass pipe used for smoking marijuana on the passenger seat of the
    vehicle. Brooks told the deputy that the pipe belonged to her and admitted that
    other narcotics and drug paraphernalia were in the vehicle. A search of the vehicle
    led to the discovery of four grams of methamphetamine, six grams of marijuana,
    prescription medication, and drug paraphernalia. As a result, the State charged
    Brooks with one count of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to
    deliver, one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver, and one
    count of possession of a prescription drug without a prescription. Brooks agreed
    to plead guilty to the charge of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to
    deliver in exchange for the State’s agreement to dismiss the other charges. The
    district court accepted her plea and sentenced her to a term of incarceration not to
    exceed ten years.
    Brooks contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel because
    her counsel failed to file a motion to suppress the evidence discovered following
    the traffic stop, claiming the traffic stop was unlawful because the anonymous tip
    did not provide the sufficient indicia of reliability required by State v. Kooima, 833
    
    3 N.W.2d 202
    , 208-09 (Iowa 2013). “It is well established that a defendant’s guilty
    plea waives all defenses and objections which are not intrinsic to the plea.” State
    v. Carroll, 
    767 N.W.2d 638
    , 641 (Iowa 2009).        “A defendant can, however,
    challenge the validity of his guilty plea by proving the advice he received from
    counsel in connection with the plea was not within the range of competence
    demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” 
    Id. To succeed
    on an ineffective-
    assistance claim, a defendant must show counsel failed to perform an essential
    duty and this failure resulted in prejudice. See Strickland v. Washington, 
    466 U.S. 668
    , 687-88 (1984); State v. Straw, 
    709 N.W.2d 128
    , 133 (Iowa 2006).
    The State argues the record is insufficient to address Brooks’s claim on
    direct appeal and it should therefore be preserved for a postconviction-relief
    proceeding. See State v. Clay, 
    824 N.W.2d 488
    , 494 (Iowa 2012) (stating that
    ineffective-assistance claims are ordinarily preserved for postconviction-relief
    proceedings and are resolved on direct appeal only when the record is adequate).
    Preservation is preferred to allow counsel the opportunity to defend against the
    charge, especially when the challenged action concerns trial strategy or tactics.
    State v. McNeal, 
    867 N.W.2d 91
    , 105-06 (Iowa 2015). “Only in rare cases will the
    trial record alone be sufficient to resolve the claim on direct appeal.” 
    Straw, 709 N.W.2d at 133
    . We preserve this claim for postconviction-relief proceedings to
    allow further development of the record.
    Brooks also challenges her sentence, arguing the district court failed to
    adequately consider her mental-health and substance-abuse needs when it
    imposed a prison sentence. Because her sentence falls within the statutory limits,
    our review is for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Roby, 
    897 N.W.2d 127
    , 137
    4
    (Iowa 2017). The question is whether there is evidence that supports the sentence
    imposed. See 
    id. In sentencing
    Brooks to a prison term, the district court considered Brooks’s
    criminal history, her prior difficulties with completing probation, and her delay in
    seeking treatment after entering her guilty plea. The court also considered the
    recommendation of the presentence-investigation report and determined that
    society’s protection and Brooks’s maximum rehabilitation would be best served by
    sentencing her to a term of not more than ten years in prison. The court then went
    on to more specifically address Brooks’s treatment needs, stating:
    The court believes that [Brooks] can get treatment in prison.
    The court has been to the prison. I’ve seen the treatment facility. I
    know they have one. Let’s hope they keep it funded, but, in any
    event, the court believes that the defendant can receive the things
    she needs in prison.
    And the court is not convinced of her commitment to enter
    treatment as shown by the fact that we’re now seven months since
    she’s entered her plea and has just recently entered treatment.
    Finally, the court expressed its belief that Brooks would receive better services and
    have a better chance of succeeding with treatment in prison than she would if she
    received treatment outside of prison. We find no abuse of discretion.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1756

Citation Numbers: 922 N.W.2d 105

Filed Date: 7/5/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023