State of Iowa v. Jesse Colt Willey

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0887
Filed March 19, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JESSE COLT WILLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wayne County,

Patrick W. Greenwood, Judge.

A defendant appeals a judgment and sentence following his written guilty

plea to operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. AFFIRMED.

Richard Hollis, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Buller, JJ.
2

BADDING, Judge.

In September 2023, Jesse Willey was charged by trial information with

second-degree theft of a vehicle. After a series of trial continuances, he reached

a plea agreement with the State in May 2024. Under that agreement, Willey

entered a written guilty plea to the reduced charge of operating a motor vehicle

without the owner’s consent, an aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa

Code section 714.7 (2023). The parties agreed to the following sentence: “60 days

jail, suspend all but 30, credit for 26 served, $855 fine, suspended. No probation.

Status review on August 13, 2024. Balance of suspended jail sentence will be

purged if compliant with recommendations” in another case. The written guilty plea

outlined the rights that Willey was giving up by pleading guilty and requested

immediate sentencing, with a waiver of Willey’s right to be present and right of

allocution.

The district court accepted Willey’s guilty plea the same day that it was

entered and imposed the agreed-upon sentence. Willey appeals, claiming the

court failed to (1) “ensure that Willey was advised that he waived ‘all trial rights’ by

pleading guilty and that he would not have ‘a trial of any kind’”; (2) allow Willey’s

attorney an opportunity to speak on his behalf; (3) afford Willey his right of

allocution; and (4) provide reasons for the sentence. The State moved to dismiss

the appeal for lack of good cause and mootness. Our supreme court ordered the

motion to be submitted with the appeal.

I. Jurisdiction

“The right to appeal is statutory.” State v. Hightower, 8 N.W.3d 527, 534

(Iowa 2024). As a result, unless an appeal is authorized by statute, we are “without
3

jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and we must dismiss the appeal.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). “Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) provides

a defendant may appeal as a matter of right from a conviction entered upon a guilty

plea only when the conviction is for a class ‘A’ felony or the defendant establishes

good cause.” State v. Davis, 969 N.W.2d 783, 785 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted).

“Once a defendant crosses the good-cause threshold as to one ground for appeal,

the court has jurisdiction over the appeal.” State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 66

(Iowa 2022).

Repeating the same arguments that it made in its motion to dismiss, the

State maintains that Willey lacks good cause to raise any of his claims on appeal.

We disagree, at least as to Willey’s challenges to the sentencing hearing, and deny

the State’s motion to dismiss.

Our supreme court has held that “good cause to challenge a sentence is

generally limited to a sentence that is neither mandatory nor agreed to as part of

a plea agreement.” State v. Kessler, No. 22-1388, 2023 WL 3088308, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2023) (citing State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020)).

Yet the court has also recognized that a defendant “has good cause to appeal as

a matter of right when the defendant challenges his sentencing hearing or the

sentence itself.” Davis, 969 N.W.2d at 785 (holding defendant established good

cause to appeal alleged denial of allocution when the district court imposed a

bargained-for sentence); see also State v. Jackson-Douglass, 970 N.W.2d 252,

256 (Iowa 2022) (finding good cause for appeal where defendant challenged “the

legality of the sentencing hearing”). Because Willey got his foot in the door by

alleging defects in the sentencing hearing, see Kessler, 2023 WL 3088308, at *1,
4

we have jurisdiction to review his other claims as well. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d at

66. But that doesn’t get Willey far, as we explain below.

II. Guilty Plea

Willey challenges the adequacy of his written guilty plea, specifically the

alleged failure to advise him that “by pleading guilty the defendant waives all trial

rights and there will not be a trial of any kind,” as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal

Procedure 2.8(2)(b)(6). Along the same lines as its good-cause challenge to this

claim, the State contests error preservation, pointing out that Willey failed to file a

motion in arrest of judgment. While such a failure “usually precludes appellate

review of alleged plea defects,” that rule does not apply unless the defendant is

adequately advised about the obligation to file the motion and the consequences

of failing to do so. Hightower, 8 N.W.3d at 535–36. The State concedes that the

advisory Willy received was insufficient. But because Willey requested and

received immediate sentencing, the State argues that he waived his right to file the

motion, and appellate relief is precluded. See State v. Evans, No. 23-0558, 2024

WL 4039571, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2024). Whether the State is correct or

not, Willey’s guilty-plea challenge fails for another reason. He has made no claim

that he “more likely than not would not have pled guilty if the defect had not

occurred,” as required by Iowa Code section 814.29. We accordingly have no

authority to vacate his guilty plea. See id.

III. Sentencing Hearing and Sentence

Moving on to Willey’s sentencing challenges, we first address the State’s

assertion that these claims are moot because “[o]n June 24, 2024, the Wayne

County Jail reported that Willey served his sentence in this case.” Willey does not
5

dispute that he served the unsuspended portion of his sentence. “Generally,

discharge of a sentence renders a challenge to the sentence moot.” State v.

Johnson, No. 16-0976, 2017 WL 2684342, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 21, 2017)

(collecting cases). But the State does not address the suspended portion of

Willey’s sentence, which may still be hanging over his head. As a result, we cannot

conclude that our opinion would be of no force or effect. State v. Avalos Valdez,

934 N.W.2d 585, 589 (Iowa 2019) (“The key in assessing whether an appeal is

moot is determining whether the opinion would be of force or effect in the

underlying controversy.” (citation omitted)).

Turning to the merits of the sentencing challenges, Willey argues that the

district court failed to allow defense counsel the opportunity to speak on his behalf

or afford him the right of allocution, as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal

Procedure 2.23(2)(d)(2) and (3). As the State points out, Willey’s written guilty

plea waived his “right to a hearing in open court for [the] guilty plea and sentencing”

and his right to allocution. See Johnson, 2017 WL 2684342, at *1 (collecting cases

holding that a defendant can waive the right to be present at sentencing and the

right of allocution). But the court’s judgment and sentencing order states that the

prosecutor, defense counsel, and Willey “appear[ed] personally”—although there

is no court reporter memorandum or transcript of a sentencing hearing in the

record before us. Cf. State v. Moore, No. 22-1129, 2023 WL 4755543, at *3 (Iowa

Ct. App. July 26, 2023) (concluding that a defendant who had waived his right to

allocution but personally appeared at the sentencing hearing was entitled to

exercise the right). In any event, we agree with the State’s alternative argument

that any error in failing to allow defense counsel and Willey an opportunity to speak
6

was harmless since the court imposed the agreed-upon sentence. See State v.

Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755, 757 (Iowa 1995) (concluding that the court’s failure to

afford a defendant the right to allocution was harmless when the defendant and

defense counsel “affirmatively stated that they agreed to the recommendation of

sentence proposed by the State”).

Willey’s final claim—that the district court abused its discretion in failing to

state the reasons for its sentence—fails for the same reason. Because the court

gave effect to the parties’ agreement, “stating reasons for imposition of sentence

would serve no useful purpose, and any failure to abide by the terms of

rule [2.23(2)(g)] was harmless.” Id. at 756.

So, although Willey got his foot in the door to appeal, he has raised no

claims that open the door to relief. We accordingly affirm the judgment and

sentence of the district court.

AFFIRMED.

Ahlers, P.J., concurs; Buller, J., dissents.
7

BULLER, Judge (dissenting).

In my view, this appeal should have been dismissed for lack of “good

cause.” See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2023). A criminal defendant establishes

“good cause” by advancing “a claim on appeal for which an appellate court

potentially could provide relief.” State v. Newman, 970 N.W.2d 866, 869

(Iowa 2022). Yet here, Willey has not advanced any claim for which we could

potentially provide relief:

• For the guilty-plea waiver of rights and related advisory, Willey requested
and received immediate sentencing. Our court recently and
unanimously held this “precludes appellate relief.” See State v. Evans,
No. 23-0558, 2024 WL 4039571, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 4, 2024).
And the majority admits we “have no authority” to reverse because relief
is separately barred by Iowa Code section 814.29 (requiring a defendant
to prove he probably would not have pled guilty absent a defect in plea
proceedings).

• As to allocution, Willey expressly waived his right to appear and, under
controlling case law, he is not entitled to appellate relief because he
received the bargained-for sentence. See State v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d
755, 756–57 (Iowa 1995) (per curiam).

• And regarding reasons for sentence, Willey received the bargained-for
sentence and, again under controlling case law, he is not entitled to
appellate relief as a matter of law. See State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d
58, 67–68 (Iowa 2022).

There is no “good cause” for this appeal. Deciding it on the merits wastes

judicial resources. And I grow tired of attempts to evade the General Assembly’s

clear intent to “curtail frivolous appeals from guilty pleas.” State v. Damme, 944

N.W.2d 98, 100 (Iowa 2020). Because I would dismiss this frivolous guilty-plea

appeal in compliance with section 814.6(1)(a)(3) rather than spend six pages to

say we cannot provide relief, I dissent.