STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ROBERT DANA WOODARD, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-283 / 06-1177
Filed June 13, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT DANA WOODARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jones County, Marsha M.
Beckelman, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the sentence entered following his guilty plea to
five counts of forgery as an habitual offender.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND
VACATED IN PART.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Robert Dana Woodard, Anamosa, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney
General, Connie S. Ricklefs, Jones County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, J.J.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Defendant-appellant, Robert Dana Woodard, pleaded guilty to five counts
of forgery as an habitual offender in violation of Iowa Code section
715A.2(2)(a)(3) and section 902.8 (2005). Woodard appeals his sentence on
several grounds. First, he argues that since he signed his own name on some of
the checks, several of the forgery charges lack a factual basis for conviction.
Second, the defendant claims that he was wrongly sentenced as an habitual
offender for a fourth-degree theft charge. Woodard also claims that the court’s
sentence erroneously included a fine. We affirm in part and vacate the portion of
the sentence that imposed a fine.
BACKGROUND. In June 2006, the State charged the defendant with five
counts of forgery as an habitual offender and one count of fourth-degree theft for
writing multiple unauthorized checks from his father’s account. Under a plea
agreement with the State, Woodard pleaded guilty to all five counts of forgery
with the habitual offender sentencing enhancement.
In exchange, the State
dismissed the theft charge and agreed that four of the five forgery sentences
would run concurrently.
The State also agreed to suspend all fines for the
forgeries if Woodard paid restitution. On June 20, 2006, Woodard pleaded guilty
to the charges outlined in the agreement. The court sentenced the defendant
immediately after the guilty plea, as the defendant requested.
The court’s
sentence followed the suggested sentence in the agreement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW. When a defendant claims that there was no
factual basis to support his conviction, we review the record for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Doggett, 687 N.W.2d 97, 99 (Iowa
3
2004).
Claims that the district court lacked authority to impose a specific
sentence are also reviewed for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v.
Kapell, 510 N.W.2d 878, 879 (Iowa 1994).
LACK OF FACTUAL BASIS. We first address the defendant’s claim that
three of the forgery charges lacked a factual basis. He claims that because he
signed his own name on some of the checks, he never “transfer[red] a writing so
that it purports to be the act of another who did not authorize that act.” Iowa
Code § 715A.2(1)(b) (emphasis added). The Iowa Supreme Court has held that
“[w]hen a check is drawn on an existing bank account and signed by the drawer
in his or her own name, the check is exactly what it purports to be.” State v.
Phillips, 569 N.W.2d 816, 820 (Iowa 1997). However, this claim can only be
considered if error was preserved for appeal or the claim fits into an exception
where preservation of error is not required. State v. Allen, 708 N.W.2d 361, 365
(Iowa 2006).
In order to preserve challenges to guilty pleas, including claims that the
charge lacked factual basis, the defendant must file a motion in arrest of
judgment. Id. at 364-65. “A defendant’s failure to challenge the adequacy of a
guilty plea proceeding by a motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the
defendant’s right to assert such challenge on appeal.”
Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.24(3)(a). Woodard waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment and
thereby his right to challenge the plea when he requested the court to sentence
him directly after he pleaded guilty. The court advised him of these rights and
the consequences of waiving them. Error was not preserved since a motion in
arrest of judgment was not filed. The defendant also does not assert that the
4
failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment was caused by ineffective assistance
of counsel, a circumstance that does not require the filing of a motion in arrest of
judgment or error preservation. Allen, 708 N.W.2d at 364-65. We therefore must
affirm his conviction.
THEFT CHARGE. The defendant argues that he was wrongly sentenced
as an habitual offender for his fourth-degree theft charge. The theft charge was
dismissed by the State, so he was not convicted of this charge. The habitual
offender enhancement was applied to the forgery convictions, not theft. We find
no error in the sentence regarding this claim.
IMPOSITION OF FINE. Defendant’s last claim of error is that the district
court lacked authority to impose a $750 fine for each count of forgery. A fine can
be imposed on habitual offenders when permitted by the applicable sentencing
statute or permitted by another statute. State v. Halterman, 630 N.W.2d 611,
613-14 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). Here, the defendant was sentenced under section
902.9(3), which states “[a]n habitual offender shall be confined for no more than
fifteen years.” Iowa Code § 902.9(3).
This section does not provide for an
habitual offender to be fined. Although another section permits a $750 fine to be
imposed for Class D felonies, such as forgeries, the section exempts habitual
offenders.
Iowa Code § 902.9(5).
The forgery statute also does not list
permissible penalties, such as fines. See Iowa Code § 715A.2. Since no statute
expressly allows habitual offenders convicted of forgery to be fined, the court had
no authority to order Woodard to pay $750 for each count of forgery. The State
concedes that this portion of the order must be vacated. We therefore vacate the
5
fines imposed by the district court and in all other respects affirm the district
court.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN 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.
