STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. BRADFORD JOHN GOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-024 / 07-0844
Filed January 30, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRADFORD JOHN GOOD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James D. Coil
(plea and motion in arrest of judgment) and Joseph Moothart (sentencing),
District Associate Judges.
A defendant appeals the district court’s order denying his motion in arrest
of judgment. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Brett Schilling, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Eisenhauer and Baker, JJ.
2
MAHAN, P.J.
Bradford Good appeals the district court’s order that denied his motion in
arrest of judgment. We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying the motion in arrest of judgment and affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Following a traffic accident in July 2006, Good was charged by trial
information with Operating While Intoxicated (first offense) in violation of Iowa
Code section 321J.2 (2005), when THC was detected in a blood sample obtained
shortly after the accident. On September 25, 2006, Good entered a written guilty
plea to the offense pursuant to a plea agreement. Good then filed a motion to
withdraw his guilty plea and a motion to suppress on November 30, 2006,
arguing that he is dyslexic, could not read the written plea although he signed it,
and was not read the plea by his attorney at the time. He later amended the
motion to a motion in arrest of judgment, which was denied by the district court
following hearing on February 20, 2007. Judgment was entered and Good was
sentenced in April 2007, and he now appeals the denial of his motion to arrest
judgment.
II.
Scope and Standard of Review.
We review the district court’s denial of Good’s motion in arrest of judgment
for an abuse of discretion, State v. Myers, 653 N.W.2d 574, 581 (Iowa 2002), and
will reverse only if the ruling was based on reasons that are clearly unreasonable
or untenable. State v. Speed, 573 N.W.2d 594, 598 (Iowa 1998).
3
III.
Issue on Appeal.
Good argues that he entered into his written guilty plea without full
knowledge and understanding of its consequences.
This occurred, Good
contends, because he is dyslexic and his attorney during the plea process failed
to read the written plea to Good or explain its consequences.
As the State
indicates in its brief, the record contradicts Good’s assertions concerning his
knowledge and assent to the written plea. Good signed the three-page plea,
initialing each paragraph as indication of his understanding of its terms, which
included a colloquy on constitutional and statutory rights, the range of possible
punishments, and possible legal defenses. The written plea even contained the
following statement, initialed by Good, “I cannot read and write. However, I do
understand the English language and have had this Plea of Guilty read to me.”
The plea also contained a verified statement by Good’s counsel at the time that
he had explained Good’s constitutional rights, reviewed the trial information,
elements of the crime and any possible defenses. The only evidence proffered
by Good to support his claim was his testimony at the motion in arrest of
judgment hearing. In light of this record before us, we conclude the district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying Good’s motion in arrest of judgment and
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
