STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. OTIS SEAY JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 3-837 / 13-0034 Filed September 18, 2013 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. OTIS SEAY JR., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L. Stigler, Judge. Otis Seay Jr. appeals following his pleas of guilty to three counts of thirddegree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda Fangman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Danilson and Tabor, JJ. 2 DANILSON, J. Otis Seay Jr. appeals following his pleas of guilty to three counts of thirddegree sexual abuse. He contends trial counsel was ineffective in allowing him to enter an Alford plea to count III,1 which charged him with committing a sex act with a seventeen-year-old girl who was incapacitated and could not give consent. See State v. Keene, 630 N.W.2d 579, 581 (Iowa 2001) ( If a defendant enters a plea of guilty to a crime and the record fails to disclose a factual basis, defense counsel fails to provide effective assistance. ). Here, the minutes of testimony2 provide a factual basis to support the guilty plea: the seventeen-year-old victim stated the defendant asked if she wanted some Ecstasy, gave her one-half of a pill, and she did not remember much after that but that defendant had sex with her and she did not give consent. We affirm. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(a), (c), (e). AFFIRMED. 1 North Caroline v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970), allows a defendant to consent to the imposition of judgment of guilty without admitting to participation in the crime. 2 The minutes of testimony make reference to a Mike : Otis Seay Jr. is also known as Mike.
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.
