State Supreme Court affirms Weitzel plea cancellation

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

The Iowa Supreme Court has affirmed the canceling of a Rockford man’s guilty plea on assault and drug charges, ruling he didn’t have all the information he needed to make an informed plea.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-2 ruling issued Friday, sent Jason Gene Weitzel’s case back to Floyd County District Court.

The ruling says the Floyd County attorney’s office can reinstate any charges that were dismissed as part of a plea agreement and file any additional charges that are warranted.

Weitzel, 40, pleaded guilty in May 2016 to charges of domestic abuse assault, a felony; second offense possession of methamphetamine and carrying weapons, aggravated misdemeanors; and operating while intoxicated, a serious misdemeanor. A charge of intimidation with a dangerous weapon was dismissed as part of the plea.

He was sentenced to serve not more than nine years in prison and ordered to pay fines and restitution.

He appealed his conviction and sentence, however, arguing that he had not been made aware of an additional 35 percent court surcharge that would be applied to his fines.

On a 7-2 vote in May this year, the Iowa Court of Appeals overturned the conviction and sentence and sent the case back to Floyd County District Court.

The state asked the Iowa Supreme Court for further review, which was granted.

The oral arguments in the case were one of several cases each year that the Supreme Court holds in locations outside of Des Moines, to make the state judiciary more accessible and to show people how the court works.

Oral arguments in this case were heard in early November at the Cedar Falls High School Auditorium. Charles City attorney David Kuehner represented Weitzel before the court.

In its decision, the state Supreme Court agreed with the ruling by the Iowa Court of Appeals that Weitzel’s decision to plead guilty was not truly voluntary because he was not aware of the total penalty possible for such a plea.

The Supreme Court opinion, written by Justice David Wiggins, said that the district court had failed to comply with an Iowa rule of criminal procedure that says before the court can accept a guilty plea it must determine that the plea is being made voluntarily and intelligently.

The judge in the case must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of the consequences of his or her plea. Included in those consequences is “the mandatory minimum punishment, if any, and the maximum possible punishment provided by the statute defining the offense to which the plea is offered.”

“The court failed to inform Weitzel about the thirty-five percent surcharges,” Wiggins wrote. “The court also failed to determine he understood what the surcharges meant. Weitzel therefore was uninformed of the true maximum possible punishment.

“Because of the district court’s noncompliance, the defendant is entitled to withdraw his pleas,” Wiggins wrote.

Justices Edward Mansfield and Thomas Waterman dissented. Mansfield wrote that Weitzel should have been informed of the 35 percent surcharge, but the total amount of fines he had been told were possible was greater than the amount of fines that he was sentenced to, therefore the error was harmless.

“Weitzel was sentenced to nine years in prison and received a combined fine and surcharge that was less than a tenth of the maximum he was told he could receive,” Mansfield wrote.