STATE OF IOWA vs. MICHAEL BYRON ABRAHAMSON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 98 / 05-1653
Filed March 21, 2008
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL BYRON ABRAHAMSON,
Appellant.
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Dale B. Hagen
(dismissal of first trial information and arraignment on second trial
information), Jerrold Jordan (ruling on motion to dismiss), and Richard D.
Morr (trial and sentencing), Judges.
The State seeks further review of a decision of the court of appeals
reversing the defendant’s conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer,
Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, Terry E. Rachels, County Attorney, and Douglas Eicholz,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
2
HECHT, Justice.
This case is before us on further review of a court of appeals decision
reversing
defendant
Abrahamson’s
conviction
for
manufacturing
methamphetamine, under Iowa Code section 124.401(1) (2004). The court
of appeals concluded the conviction on the manufacturing charge must be
reversed because Abrahamson’s right to a speedy trial was violated on a
previous conspiracy-to-manufacture-methamphetamine charge arising from
the same facts. We agree that Abrahamson’s conviction cannot stand under
the circumstances presented here.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
In the early morning of April 23, 2004, officers initiated a traffic stop
of a vehicle near Bussey, Iowa. When the officers stopped the car, Michael
Abrahamson was sitting in the front passenger seat. While questioning the
driver of the car, an officer observed Abrahamson reach down to the
floorboard of the car. The odor of ammonia emanating from the car was
overpowering, and officers discovered rubber tubing, a pair of leather gloves,
and a cold Tupperware bowl with a mixture containing methamphetamine
on the passenger side floorboard. The officers arrested the driver and
Abrahamson, and on April 30, 2004, the State filed a trial information (in
case number FECR020642) charging Abrahamson with conspiracy to
manufacture methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(1)(b)(7).
On July 28, 2004, the district court found good cause to delay the
trial for thirty-one days because Abrahamson had been in voluntary
inpatient drug treatment. Trial was rescheduled to begin August 25, 2004.
On August 13, 2004, the State moved to dismiss the conspiracy charge
without prejudice “in the interests of justice,” pursuant to Iowa Rule of
3
Criminal Procedure 2.33(1). Although the State did not provide any specific
reasons for its assertion that the dismissal of the conspiracy charge was in
the furtherance of justice, the district court granted the motion the same
day without a hearing. The State also filed on the same day a two-count
trial information (in case number FECR020894) charging Abrahamson with
manufacturing methamphetamine (Count I) and conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine (Count II), based on the facts that formed the basis for
the April 23 arrest and the dismissed information in case number
FECR020642.
Abrahamson filed a motion asserting the manufacturing and
conspiracy charges should be dismissed. He contended the conspiracy
count could not be refiled because it alleged an offense that had previously
been dismissed upon the State’s motion in case number FECR020642 for
the purpose of avoiding the speedy trial rule, and not in the furtherance of
justice. Abrahamson’s motion further asserted the manufacturing charge
must be dismissed because it was based on the same set of facts as the
dismissed
conspiracy
charge,
and
because
manufacturing
methamphetamine and conspiracy to manufacture that substance are
alternative means of committing the same offense in violation of Iowa Code
section 124.401(1).
On April 4, 2005, another district court judge granted Abrahamson’s
motion to dismiss the conspiracy charge.
The court reasoned
Abrahamson’s speedy trial rights were violated because the August 13,
2004 dismissal in case number FECR020642 was not shown to be “in the
furtherance of justice.”1 The court denied Abrahamson’s motion to dismiss
the manufacturing charge.
1Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33(1) authorizes the dismissal of a prosecution
in the furtherance of justice with “the reasons therefor being stated in the order and
4
A jury found Abrahamson guilty of manufacturing more than five
grams of methamphetamine, and the district court sentenced him to a
twenty-five-year indeterminate prison sentence and a $5000 fine.
Abrahamson appealed, contending the district court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss the manufacturing charge on speedy trial grounds.2 The
court of appeals reversed Abrahamson’s conviction. We granted the State’s
application for further review.
II.
Scope of Review.
Abrahamson claims he was denied his right to a speedy trial. Our
review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Miller, 637 N.W.2d 201, 204
(Iowa 2001).
III.
Discussion.
Our analysis of whether a charge is barred by a previous speedy trial
dismissal requires a two-step process. State v. Fisher, 351 N.W.2d 798, 801
(Iowa 1984) (citing State v. Moritz, 293 N.W.2d 235, 238 (Iowa 1980)). We
first determine whether the initial charge was dismissed “for speedy-trial
reasons, not in the ‘furtherance of justice.’ ” Id. If we answer that question
in the affirmative, we look to whether the subsequent charge is for the
“same offense” previously dismissed on speedy trial grounds. Id.
A. Speedy Trial Dismissal. Prosecutions of criminal offenses in
Iowa “may be terminated only by public officers in accordance with
___________________________
entered of record.” Although the State’s motion alleged the requested dismissal was in the
“furtherance of justice,” it did not allege a factual basis for such a finding. The order
granting the State’s motion stated the relief was granted “for the reasons stated in the
State’s motion.”
2In
a brief filed on appeal by his counsel, Abrahamson also contends the district
court erred by admitting evidence of prior bad acts and allowing a recording into evidence
in violation of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Abrahamson raises nine
other issues in his pro se appellate brief. Because we conclude the district court erred in
failing to dismiss the manufacturing charge, we do not reach these issues.
5
established procedures.” State v. Swallom, 244 N.W.2d 321, 324 (Iowa
1976). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.33 prescribes the procedure by
which prosecutors may seek dismissal of pending charges without
prejudice:
The court, upon its own motion or the application of the
prosecuting attorney, in the furtherance of justice, may order
the dismissal of any pending criminal prosecution, the reasons
therefor being stated in the order and entered of record, and no
such prosecution shall be discontinued or abandoned in any
other manner. Such a dismissal is a bar to another prosecution
for the same offense if it is a simple or serious misdemeanor;
but it is not a bar if the offense charged be a felony or an
aggravated misdemeanor.
(Emphasis added.) Under rule 2.33(1), after a dismissal in the furtherance
of justice, the same felony or aggravated misdemeanor charges may be
refiled. However, in order to obtain a valid dismissal in the interests of
justice (and the resulting benefit of a dismissal without prejudice), the State
must provide appropriate and sufficient reasons for the dismissal. State v.
Gansz, 403 N.W.2d 778, 780 (Iowa 1987) (noting “if it could be
demonstrated that the prior dismissal, regardless of its stated purpose, was
without adequate cause and that it impacted unfavorably upon a
defendant’s speedy trial rights, the resulting delay in prosecution would
warrant a dismissal”).
A dismissal for failure to provide a speedy trial is an “absolute
dismissal, a discharge with prejudice, prohibiting reinstatement or refiling
of an information or indictment charging the same offense.”
State v.
Johnson, 217 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 1974) (stating that allowing the State
to refile the same charges following a speedy trial violation would “drain [the
speedy trial rule] of its effectiveness”) (citing Strunk v. United States, 412
U.S. 434, 438, 93 S. Ct. 2260, 2263, 37 L. Ed. 2d 56, 61 (1973); Barker v.
6
Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 522, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 2188, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101, 112
(1972); Hilbert v. Dooling, 476 F.2d 355, 358 (2d Cir. 1973)).
In its April 4, 2005 order, the district court dismissed with prejudice
the conspiracy charge in case number FECR020894 because the State had
failed to bring Abrahamson to trial on the conspiracy charge in case
number FECR020642 within the speedy trial deadline. The State has not
sought appellate review of that decision. Accordingly, we must determine if
the manufacturing charge in case number FECR020894 is the same offense
for speedy trial purposes as the conspiracy-to-manufacture charge that was
dismissed in case number FECR020642.
B. Same Offense. In State v. Williams, 305 N.W.2d 428 (Iowa 1984),
the defendant was charged in a two-count information with possession of a
controlled substance with intent to deliver it and delivery of the substance
in violation of Iowa Code section 204.401(1) (1977).3 305 N.W.2d at 430.
The State subsequently sought and obtained, over Williams’s resistance,
leave to amend the information to allege in a third count that Williams also
engaged in a conspiracy to manufacture, possess with intent, and deliver
the same controlled substance. After he was convicted and sentenced on all
three counts, Williams claimed on appeal the district court erred in granting
leave to amend the information because the conspiracy charge was a
“wholly new and different offense.”
See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.4(8)(a)
(precluding amendment of the information “if substantial rights of the
defendant are prejudiced, or if a wholly new and different offense is
charged”). We rejected that claim, reasoning the conspiracy charge did not
allege a new offense, but merely “[an alternative] means of committing the
3Iowa Code section 204.401(1) (1977) was the predecessor to the current drug
trafficking statute, section 124.401(1).
7
same offense” of drug trafficking. Williams, 305 N.W.2d at 431. Based on
the same reasoning, we vacated the judgment and remanded the case for
resentencing on a single drug trafficking offense because the district court
erred in sentencing Williams for three offenses. Id. at 434.
The court of appeals relied on the Williams decision in deciding the
conspiracy and manufacturing counts in the information filed against
Abrahamson alleged alternative means of committing one offense. The
court concluded just as the dismissed conspiracy charge could not be
refiled as a consequence of a violation of Abrahamson’s speedy trial rights,
the conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine cannot stand because it
constitutes an alternative means of committing the same offense: a violation
of Iowa Code section 124.401(1).
The State contends the court of appeals erred in relying on Williams
because the analytical framework used in determining whether the offenses
are the same for speedy trial purposes should differ from the one applied in
determining whether amendments to trial informations should be granted.
The State urges us to adopt a “same elements” test (sometimes called the
“legal elements” test and employed in the identification of lesser included
offenses, see State v. Halliburton, 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995)) for the
resolution of speedy trial “same offense” issues. See Blockburger v. United
States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S. Ct. 180, 182, 76 L. Ed. 306, 309 (1932).
Under the Blockburger analysis, the court would determine whether two
offenses were the “same” by comparing the elements of proof required for
each offense. Id.
We confronted the question whether charges were the “same offense”
for speedy trial purposes in State v. Moritz, 293 N.W.2d 235 (Iowa 1980).4 In
4The speedy trial statute considered in Moritz, Iowa Code section 795.2 (1977), was
substantially identical to the current speedy trial rule, rule 2.33(2)(b), with the exception
8
Moritz, the State filed an information claiming the defendant violated Iowa
Code sections 739.10 (1977) (accepting award for public duty) and 740.1
(extortion) on January 7, 1977, and engaged in a conspiracy to commit
those crimes in violation of section 719.1. The State’s motion to dismiss the
information “in the interests of justice” was sustained by the court. The
State later filed a new information alleging Moritz accepted an award for
public duty on April 5, 1977, in violation of section 739.10 and engaged in a
conspiracy to do so.
In our decision on Moritz’s appeal following his
conviction on both charges, we concluded the conspiracy charge must be
dismissed because it alleged the same offense (conspiracy) charged in the
earlier information; and its refiling violated Moritz’s right to a speedy trial.
We held, however, the other charge (accepting an award for public duty in
violation of section 739.10) was not vulnerable to Moritz’s motion to dismiss
based on the speedy trial rule because it alleged a different offense
committed on a different date than the offense charged under the same
statute in the dismissed information.
Our decision in Moritz noted the “same offense” test applied in the
speedy trial context focuses on whether the “ ‘two offenses are in substance
the same, or of the same nature, or same species, so that the evidence
which proves one would prove the other.’ ” 293 N.W.2d at 238–39 (quoting
State v. Stewart, 223 N.W.2d 250, 251 (Iowa 1974)). Applying this test, we
held the conspiracy count that alleged the same conspiracy as that charged
in the previously dismissed trial information was the same offense for
speedy trial purposes. Id. at 239. We therefore reversed Moritz’s conviction
on the refiled conspiracy charge, but we affirmed his conviction on the other
charge.
___________________________
that it required a trial within sixty days of the filing of an indictment or trial information
rather than ninety days.
9
The Moritz analysis is neither controlling nor instructive in this case.
Unlike Abrahamson, the appellant in Moritz did not claim the two charges
(accepting an award for public duty, and engaging in a conspiracy to do so)
based on statutes in different code chapters were alternative means of
committing the same offense. Thus we had no occasion in that case to
consider whether the conspiracy charge and the “accepting an award for
public duty” charge were the same offense for purposes of the speedy trial
rule.
Indeed, the conspiracy charge in that case was filed under the
separate conspiracy statute5 that appeared in a different code chapter than
the other offense with which Moritz was charged.
In sharp contrast,
Abrahamson was charged with both manufacturing a controlled substance
and conspiracy to commit that crime under a single statute, Iowa Code
section 124.401(1). The legislature’s prohibition of drug conspiracies and
other drug trafficking offenses in that single code section led us in Williams
to conclude one commits a single criminal offense by manufacturing a
controlled substance and engaging in a conspiracy to manufacture that
same substance.
Williams, 305 N.W.2d at 431.
We reaffirmed this
conclusion in State v. Maghee, 573 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 1997) (holding that as
conspiracy is an alternative means of violating section 124.401(1),
defendant could not be sentenced for both conspiracy and possession of
illegal substance with intent to deliver).
As the State correctly notes, our decision in Williams did not address
whether manufacturing and conspiracy counts arising from a common set
of facts, and charged under section 124.401(1), are one offense for purposes
of determining whether a dismissal with prejudice of one of them under rule
2.33 bars the refiling of both of them. We now answer that question in the
5The defendant in Moritz was charged with conspiracy under Iowa Code chapter
719. That statute has since been renumbered and now appears in chapter 706.
10
affirmative.
We
find
unpersuasive
the
State’s
contention
that
manufacturing and conspiracy should be viewed as one offense in
furtherance of the State’s interest in amending an information, but be
viewed as separate offenses when defendants seek to enforce their right to a
speedy trial.
The State contends our decision in State v. Lies, 566 N.W.2d 507
(Iowa 1997), should lead us to a different conclusion. In that case, the
defendant was initially arrested and a complaint was filed against him
charging burglary in the second degree. 566 N.W.2d at 507. Fifty-five days
later, the State filed an information charging the defendant with conspiracy
to commit a burglary. The defendant filed a motion under the speedy
indictment rule, contending the information must be dismissed because he
was not indicted within forty-five days after his arrest. See Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.33(2)(a) (requiring, in the absence of good cause, dismissal of a charge if
defendant is not indicted within forty-five days after arrest).
A jury
acquitted the defendant on the burglary charge, but convicted him on the
conspiracy charge. We concluded on appellate review the defendant’s right
to a speedy indictment was not violated because conspiracy to commit
burglary was not the same offense as the burglary for which the defendant
was arrested. We noted the defendant was charged with conspiracy under
Iowa Code section 706.1; and that Iowa Code section 706.4 expressly
provides “[a] conspiracy to commit a public offense is an offense separate
and distinct from any public offense which might be committed pursuant to
such conspiracy.” As we have noted, Abrahamson was not charged with
conspiracy under chapter 706. He was instead charged under section
124.401(1) which identifies conspiracy as one of several alternative means
11
of committing the offense of drug trafficking. Thus, the rule announced in
Lies is not dispositive here.
The State also relies on our decision in State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95
(Iowa 2004), in support of its assertion that conspiracy and manufacturing
should be viewed as separate offenses under section 124.401(1) for speedy
trial purposes. Fintel was charged with both conspiracy to manufacture
methamphetamine and manufacturing methamphetamine. 689 N.W.2d at
100–01.
A jury found Fintel not guilty of manufacturing a controlled
substance, but guilty of conspiracy to manufacture. We rejected on appeal
Fintel’s assertion that these verdicts were fatally inconsistent, reasoning
that conspiracy and manufacturing are alternative means of committing a
single offense under the drug trafficking statute.
It was consequently
possible that Fintel could be acquitted of manufacturing a controlled
substance, but be convicted on the conspiracy alternative which required no
proof of completed manufacture, and we therefore upheld Fintel’s
conviction. Id. Our decision today is consistent with our reasoning in
Fintel, because it reaffirms the proposition that manufacturing and
conspiracy are alternative means of committing a single offense under
section 124.401(1).6
Under the interpretation favored by the State, all of the “alternatives”
listed in section 124.401(1)—a total of at least thirty-six—would constitute
separate crimes because they would require proof of different elements. As
6Although
our holding in this case is consistent with the fundamental principle that
section 124.401 defines one offense, drug trafficking, and enumerates numerous
alternative means of committing it, it should be noted that Fintel does not control our
disposition in this case. There was no speedy trial violation in Fintel, a case in which both
manufacturing and conspiracy alternatives were submitted to the jury. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d
at 100. In sharp contrast, the conspiracy charge against Abrahamson was dismissed with
prejudice as a consequence of a speedy trial violation before the manufacturing charge was
submitted to the jury.
12
the alternatives would no longer be considered the “same offense,” the
Williams merger rule would not apply, and a defendant could therefore be
charged with, convicted of, and sentenced for, multiple violations of section
124.401(1).
Our contrary interpretation of the statute as a measure
enumerating alternative means of committing the singular offense of drug
trafficking has been extant for more than twenty-five years.
The
legislature’s failure to amend the statute to enumerate multiple offenses
suggests our understanding of the statute comports with the intent of the
drafters. See Iowa Dep’t of Transp. v. Soward, 650 N.W.2d 569, 574 (Iowa
2002) (legislature’s failure to “correct” this court’s interpretation of a statute
is entitled to considerable weight).
We have yet another concern about the consequences of the
interpretation of section 124.401(1) advanced by the State. It would permit,
if not encourage, the piecemeal prosecution of drug trafficking charges as a
means of avoidance of the time-honored constraints of our speedy trial rule.
For example, under the State’s interpretation, the dismissal of the
conspiracy charge as a penalty for violation of Abrahamson’s right to a
speedy trial would be of insubstantial consequence to the State because the
manufacturing charge would stand in ready reserve to be charged as a
separate offense.7 Such an interpretation would undermine the salutary
purposes of the speedy trial rule. See Johnson, 217 N.W.2d at 612 (noting
the remedy afforded by a dismissal with prejudice for violation of the speedy
trial rule assures that the rule will not be rendered meaningless).
7Given
the large number of discrete offenses defined in section 124.401(1) under the
State’s interpretation, it is conceivable that the State could, as a matter of strategy, file an
information but hold in reserve several alternative offenses in cases involving alleged
manufacturing, possession and delivery of controlled substances. In drug trafficking cases
involving multiple individuals, the potential array of such offenses available “in reserve”
would of course be even greater under the State’s interpretation of the rule, as a conspiracy
offense might have been committed in such cases.
13
Accordingly, the court of appeals correctly concluded Abrahamson’s
manufacturing conviction must be reversed.
IV.
Conclusion.
Abrahamson was charged with alternative means of violating section
124.401(1):
manufacturing
methamphetamine
and
conspiracy
to
manufacture the same substance. The conspiracy charge was dismissed
with prejudice as a consequence of a violation of Abrahamson’s right to a
speedy trial. Because the manufacturing charge alleged the same offense—
a violation of section 124.401(1) arising from the same facts—it, too, must
be dismissed.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED; DISTRICT COURT
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
All justices concur except Streit, J., who takes no part.
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.
