defendant failed to preserve error in Iowa

2020“Instead, a written waiver filed by the defendant can be sufficient.” Id.; see also State v. Barnes, 652 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa 2002) (concluding the defendant failed to preserve error because he did not move in arrest of judgment when his written guilty plea clearly stated that a failure to file such a motion would bar any challenge to his plea on appeal).

2019“Instead, a written waiver filed by the defendant can be sufficient.” Id.; see also State v. Barnes, 652 N.W.2d 466, 468 (Iowa 2002) (concluding the defendant failed to preserve error because he did not file a motion in arrest of judgment when his written guilty plea clearly stated that a failure to file such a motion would bar any challenge to his plea on appeal).

2016See State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Iowa 1995) (“Failure to properly object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also allows the instruction, right or wrong, to become the law of the case.”).

2016See State v. Hepperle, 530 N.W.2d 735, 740 (Iowa 1995) (“Failure to properly object to an instruction not only waives the right to assert error on appeal, but also allows the instruction, right or wrong, to become the law of the case.”).

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2010Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.6(3) requires the trial court to instruct on lesser-included offenses, “even though such instructions have not been requested.” Notwithstanding the trial court’s duty in this regard, we have a long-standing requirement that, to preserve error on a trial court’s failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense, “a defendant must request a lesser-included offense instruction or object to the court’s failure to give it.” State v. Jeffries, 430 N.W.2d 728, 737 (Iowa 1988); accord State v. Wallace, 475 N.W.2d 197, 202 (Iowa 1991); cf. State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 7

2017Id.

2013See Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d at 523 (the defendant failed to preserve error on his constitutional claim because he did not raise any constitutional argument before the district court); State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 2008) (stating that “[a] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must alert the court to what specific constitutional provisions are allegedly compromised by the statute.”) (internal citations omitted).

2016See State v. Biddle, 652 N.W.2d 191, 198 (Iowa 2002) (stating it was “too late” to raise the recusal issue in a motion for new trial after the issue became apparent during trial); State v. Kelsen, No. 13-0652, 2014 WL 69825 , at 3 *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2014) (holding the defendant failed to preserve error where the defendant “did not raise the issue of whether the district associate judge should have recused himself during the sentencing hearing”); State v. Harkey, No. 10-0118, 2012 WL 299535 , at *11 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2012) (“Upon our review of the record, nowhere do we find a motion

2006Id.

2026See State v. Crawford, 972 N.W.2d 189 , 198 (Iowa 2022) (“When we speak of error preservation, all we mean is that a party has an obligation to raise an issue in the district court and obtain a decision on the issue so that an appellate court can review the merits of the decision actually rendered.”).

2025And a New York appellate court concluded, 15 “Defendant’s claim that the remote sentencing proceeding violated [New York’s rules of criminal procedure] . . . does not qualify as a mode of proceedings error obviating the need for preservation.” People v. Lomack, 192 N.Y.S.3d 703, 706 (App. Div. 2023).

2025See, e.g., Treptow, 960 N.W.2d at 109 (holding that, when a defendant failed to preserve error because he did not file a motion in arrest of judgment, there was no “good cause” for the appeal); State 3 v. Hunsucker, No. 22-0598, 2022 WL 4362186 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022) (“[W]hen a defendant asserts a deficiency in the plea hearing but did not move in arrest of judgment, good cause is lacking because error was not preserved.” (citation omitted)); State v. Scott, No. 20-1453, 2022 WL 610570 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022); see also State v. Lyons, 16 N.W.3d 66, 73 (Iowa Ct. App

2025See, e.g., State v. Cornelius, 293 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa 1980) (determining the defendant failed to preserve error when he moved for mistrial after the State rested its case-in-chief because the “defendant should have asked for a mistrial when the allegedly prejudicial question was asked”); Gibb, 303 N.W.2d at 678 (finding error unpreserved on the defendant’s 8 argument that witness testimony violated a constitutional right when the defendant did not assert that argument until his posttrial motion in arrest of judgment and request for new trial).

2025See, e.g., Treptow, 960 N.W.2d at 109 (holding that, when a defendant failed to preserve error because he did not file a motion in arrest of judgment, there was no “good cause” for the appeal); State 3 v. Hunsucker, No. 22-0598, 2022 WL 4362186 , at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022) (“[W]hen a defendant asserts a deficiency in the plea hearing but did not move in arrest of judgment, good cause is lacking because error was not preserved.” (citation omitted)); State v. Scott, No. 20-1453, 2022 WL 610570 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2022); see also State v. Lyons, 16 N.W.3d 66, 73 (Iowa Ct. App

2025See 12 N.W.3d 1, 3, (Iowa Ct. App. 2024).

2025See, e.g., State v. Cornelius, 293 N.W.2d 267, 269 (Iowa 1980) (determining the defendant failed to preserve error when he moved for mistrial after the State rested its case-in-chief because the “defendant should have asked for a mistrial when the allegedly prejudicial question was asked”); Gibb, 303 N.W.2d at 678 (finding error unpreserved on the defendant’s 8 argument that witness testimony violated a constitutional right when the defendant did not assert that argument until his posttrial motion in arrest of judgment and request for new trial).

2025Although we may have jurisdiction over an issue within a conditional guilty plea, our ability to reach the merits is still subject to “our normal rules of error preservation.” State v. McClain, 20 N.W.3d 488, 495 (Iowa 2025) (holding interest-of-justice jurisdiction was satisfied when party nominally appealed the reserved issues within the conditional guilty plea, but declining to reach the merits of one issue because the defendant failed to preserve error).

2024Corp., 220 P.3d 1, 17 (Mont. 2009) (holding party failed to preserve issue in pretrial motion to dismiss where same points were not raised during or after trial); Paradise Inc. v. Pierce County, 102 P.3d 173, 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (stating to preserve error with respect to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the party must renew the issue at trial).

2024Corp., 220 P.3d 1, 17 (Mont. 2009) (holding party failed to preserve issue in pretrial motion to dismiss where same points were not raised during or after trial); Paradise Inc. v. Pierce County, 102 P.3d 173, 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004) (stating to preserve error with respect to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the party must renew the issue at trial).

2019See State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794, 801 (Iowa 2018) (noting a search-and-seizure claim under our state constitution is “minimally preserved” when counsel merely cites article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution but describes the claim based on “generally adopted federal caselaw”); State v. Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016) (finding the defendant failed to preserve error on state constitutional claim because he “never apprised the district court that he believed the search violated article I, section 8”).

2019See State v. Ingram, 914 N.W.2d 794, 801 (Iowa 2018) (noting a search-and-seizure claim under our state constitution is “minimally preserved” when counsel merely cites article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution but describes the claim based on “generally adopted federal caselaw”); State v. Prusha, 874 N.W.2d 627, 630 (Iowa 2016) (finding the defendant failed to preserve error on state constitutional claim because he “never apprised the district court that he believed the search violated article I, section 8”).

2018See State v. Rodriguez , 804 N.W.2d 844 , 848 (Iowa 2011) (considering the defendant's challenge to the factual basis for his guilty plea as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel even though the defendant failed to preserve error on the claim by filing a motion in arrest of judgment).

2018“Objections to instructions, or the lack thereof, may not be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Wellington, 264 N.W.2d 739, 742 (Iowa 1978); cf. State v. McCoy, No. 14-0918, 2016 WL 3269458 , at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. June 15, 10 2016). (“We agree this is a challenge to the jury instructions, and we agree the defendant failed to preserve error.”).

2013See Krogmann, 804 N.W.2d at 523 (the defendant failed to preserve error on his constitutional claim because he did not raise any constitutional argument before the district court); State v. Mitchell, 757 N.W.2d 431, 435 (Iowa 2008) (stating that “[a] party challenging the constitutionality of a statute must alert the court to what specific constitutional provisions are allegedly compromised by the statute.”) (internal citations omitted).

1984Whether we characterize the officers’ examination of the interior of the vehicle as a warrantless “search” or merely an “inventory,” see South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 370-71 , 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3097 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000, 1006 (1976), it was incumbent on the State to justify it, either on a probable cause basis, e.g., Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), or as incident to a lawful impoundment under Opperman .

1984Whether we characterize the officers’ examination of the interior of the vehicle as a warrantless “search” or merely an “inventory,” see South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 370-71 , 96 S.Ct. 3092, 3097 , 49 L.Ed.2d 1000, 1006 (1976), it was incumbent on the State to justify it, either on a probable cause basis, e.g., Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42 , 90 S.Ct. 1975 , 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970), or as incident to a lawful impoundment under Opperman .