STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff - Appellee, vs. MORRIS ANTHONY NUNN , Defendant - Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-613 / 07-1985
Filed August 27, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MORRIS ANTHONY NUNN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Kyle Williamson,
District Associate Judge.
Appellant Nunn appeals from judgment entered following a guilty plea to
driving while barred. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth Reynoldson, Assistant
Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Marc Gellerman,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Miller and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On July 31, 2007, the State charged appellant Morris Nunn with driving
while barred in violation of Iowa Code sections 321.555(1) and 321.56 (2007);
domestic abuse assault resulting in bodily injury (domestic abuse) in violation of
Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b); and criminal mischief in the third degree in
violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1 and 716.5. The charges stemmed from an
incident on July 16, 2007, when Nunn went to the residence of his former
girlfriend, Hurstrom, slashed her tires, and punched her in the face. Two officers,
Farley and Pape, filed incident reports after responding to Hurstrom’s residence
and interviewing Nunn and Hurstrom.
On October 15, 2007, Nunn entered a written plea of guilty to the charges
of driving while barred and domestic abuse in exchange for a dismissal of the
criminal mischief charge. Nunn filed a motion in arrest of judgment on November
7, 2007, alleging that he was not advised that he could receive consecutive
sentences and that the convictions could have an effect on his Illinois parole or
probation.
On November 13, 2007, the court denied the motion in arrest of
judgment and sentenced Nunn on the driving while barred and domestic abuse
pleas. Nunn filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2007. Nunn argues that
his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing Nunn to plead guilty to driving while
barred, a crime for which no factual basis existed.1
1
Nunn does not appeal his conviction for domestic abuse.
3
II. Standard of Review
We review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims de novo.
State v.
Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d 785, 788 (Iowa 1999).
III. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, Nunn must prove that (1)
counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) prejudice resulted. State v.
Simmons, 714 N.W.2d 264, 276 (Iowa 2006). The district court may not accept a
guilty plea unless it has first determined that the plea has a factual basis. State
v. Schminkey, 597 N.W.2d at 788. If no factual basis exists and counsel allows
the defendant to plead guilty, counsel has failed to perform an essential duty, and
prejudice is inherent. Id. Thus, we must determine whether a factual basis
existed for Nunn’s guilty plea to the charge of driving while barred.
Id.
In
determining whether a factual basis exists, we examine the record, which
includes the minutes of testimony. State v. Keene, 630 N.W.2d 579, 581 (Iowa
2001).
Nunn specifically contends that there is no evidence that he was in
physical control of a vehicle on a roadway, as required by Iowa Code sections
321.561 and 321.1 (2007).
He does not dispute that the record shows his
license was barred. Nunn’s written guilty plea contains his admission that there
was a factual basis to the charges and that he did the acts described in the
minutes of testimony. The minutes, which include the reports of investigating
officers, contain some conflicting statements. Officer Farley’s report indicates
that Hurstrom informed Pape that Nunn had driven to her residence. However,
4
Pape’s report states that Hurstrom told him she did not know how Nunn got to
her residence. Nunn told Officer Farley that he had been dropped off by a friend.
However, the uncontroverted information in the reports is that Hurstrom
informed the officers that Nunn drove an older model, black SUV. A vehicle
matching this description was found in the area, and Hurstrom confirmed that it
was Nunn’s vehicle. While searching Nunn, Farley found the keys to this vehicle
in Nunn’s front pocket. These facts are sufficient to constitute a basis for the
charge of driving while barred.
We find that, when considered together, the police officers’ reports
establish a factual basis for the element of the crime that Nunn was in physical
control of his vehicle on a roadway.
Accordingly, Nunn’s counsel was not
ineffective when she permitted Nunn to plead guilty to the charge of driving while
barred.
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.
