error preservation rule in Iowa

2020To sidestep the error-preservation hurdle, Grady raises the issue under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric.1 See Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016) (raising claim under the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric is an exception to the error-preservation rule).

2019See Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016) (raising claim under the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric is an exception to the error- preservation rule).

2018See State v. Steiger, 903 N.W.2d 169, 170 (Iowa 2017) (“Requirements of the enhanced-penalty hearing were not followed by the district court in this case, and the error preservation rule we established in Harrington was not in existence at the time.”).

2018See State v. Steiger, 903 N.W.2d 169, 170 (Iowa 2017) (reversing the judgment 13 and sentences for failure to comply with Harrington despite the lack of error preservation because “the error preservation rule . . . established in Harrington was not in existence at the time” of the colloquy).

2017State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 263 (Iowa 2010).

2017State v. Fountain, 786 N.W.2d 260, 262-63 (Iowa 2010).

2021Cf. UE Loc. 893/IUP, 928 N.W.2d at 60 (“Our doctrine of error preservation ‘requires a party seeking to appeal an issue presented to, but not considered by, the district court to call to the attention of the district court its failure to decide the issue.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 540 )).

2019If the court’s ruling indicates that the court considered the issue and necessarily ruled on it, even if the court’s reasoning is ‘incomplete or sparse,’ the issue has been preserved.” Id. at 864 (quoting Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 540 ).

2021P. 2.8(2)(d), 2.24(3)(a); see also State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2017) (noting that filing a motion in arrest of judgment to challenge deficiencies in a plea proceeding is “an error preservation requirement”).

2020It is well established that the error preservation rule requires a defendant to file a motion in arrest of judgment to preserve an attack on his or her plea. 7 State v. Smith, 924 N.W.2d 846, 851 (Iowa 2019); State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2017).

2025In re Marriage of Heiar, 954 N.W.2d 464 , 470 (Iowa Ct. App. 2020) (cleaned up); see also DeVoss v. State, 648 N.W.2d 56, 60 (Iowa 2002) (“[I]t is unfair to allow a party to choose to remain silent in the trial court in the face of error, taking a chance on a favorable outcome, and subsequently assert error on appeal if the outcome in the trial court is unfavorable.” (cleaned up)).

2017See DeVoss, 648 N.W.2d at 61 .

2025Top of Iowa Coop. v. Sime Farms, Inc., 608 N.W.2d 454, 470 (Iowa 2000).

2024But the error-preservation requirement protects more “than simply the interests of the opposing party.” Top of Iowa Co-op, 608 N.W.2d at 470 .

2020It is well established that the error preservation rule requires a defendant to file a motion in arrest of judgment to preserve an attack on his or her plea. 7 State v. Smith, 924 N.W.2d 846, 851 (Iowa 2019); State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2017).

2019See State v. Johnson, No. 17-1871, 2018 WL 6120245 , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018); see also State v. Smith, 924 N.W.2d 846, 850 (Iowa 2019) (“Smith contends the requirement in rule 2.8(2)(d) and the error preservation exception . . . should apply to habitual offender proceedings.

2023For instance, the error- preservation rule generally does not apply “to void, illegal or procedurally defective sentences.” State v. Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609, 615 (Iowa 2017).

2018For instance, the error-preservation rule generally does not apply "to void, illegal or procedurally defective sentences." State v. Richardson , 890 N.W.2d 609 , 615 (Iowa 2017).

2018“Preemption occurs unless the [tort] claims are separate and independent, and therefore incidental, causes of action.” Greenland v. Fairtron Corp., 500 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa 1993).

2017“Preemption occurs unless the [tort] claims are separate and independent, and therefore incidental, causes of action.” Greenland v. Fairtron Corp., 500 N.W.2d 36, 38 (Iowa 1993).

2025This error-preservation requirement applies even to dissolution proceedings because we only have jurisdiction to give de novo review—“not trial de novo or trial anew.” In re Marriage of Huston, 263 N.W.2d 697 , 699–700 (Iowa 1978).

2025This error-preservation requirement applies even to dissolution appeals because we only conduct “review de novo, not trial de novo or trial anew.” In re Marriage of Huston, 263 N.W.2d 697 , 699–700 (Iowa 1978).

2020See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012) (“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal.” (citation omitted)); see also State v. Bynum, 937 N.W.2d 319 , 324 (Iowa 2020) (noting the error-preservation requirement “applies with equal force to constitutional issues”).

2019If the court’s ruling indicates that the court considered the issue and necessarily ruled on it, even if the court’s reasoning is ‘incomplete or sparse,’ the issue has been preserved.” Id. at 864 (quoting Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 540 ).

2018Similarly, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel "are not bound by traditional error-preservation rules." State v. Ondayog , 722 N.W.2d 778 , 784 (Iowa 2006) ; see also Nguyen v. State , 878 N.W.2d 744 , 750 (Iowa 2016) ("To the extent error is not preserved on an issue, any objections must be raised within an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework.").

2017Similarly, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel “are not bound 16 by traditional error-preservation rules.” State v. Ondayog, 722 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2006); see also Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016) (“To the extent error is not preserved on an issue, any objections must be raised within an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel framework.”).

2024But we are bound by the error preservation rule as stated by our supreme court: “We have repeatedly held that timely objection to jury instructions in criminal prosecutions is necessary in order to preserve any error thereon for appellate review.” State v. Davis, 951 N.W.2d 8 , 16 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted); see also State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014) (“We are not at liberty to overrule controlling supreme court precedent.”).

2023See State v. Perry, No. 15-1949, 2017 WL 936092, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017). 9 From the outset of his argument, LuCore agrees “[t]he issue of ‘inconsistent verdicts’ was not explicitly raised in the district court” but notes caselaw does not “address what is minimally required to preserve error on this issue.” Because this was a bench trial, LuCore relies on the rationale underlying the exception to the error preservation requirement for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and argues “error need not be preserved on a claim of inconsistent verdicts because in a bench trial the

2023See State v. Perry, No. 15-1949, 2017 WL 936092, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2017). 9 From the outset of his argument, LuCore agrees “[t]he issue of ‘inconsistent verdicts’ was not explicitly raised in the district court” but notes caselaw does not “address what is minimally required to preserve error on this issue.” Because this was a bench trial, LuCore relies on the rationale underlying the exception to the error preservation requirement for challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and argues “error need not be preserved on a claim of inconsistent verdicts because in a bench trial the

2022See, e.g., Albright, 925 N.W.2d at 150– 51; State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 , 388–89 (Iowa 2016); State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011); State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611 , 615–16 (Iowa 2004); State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999); Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 270 ; Geier, 484 N.W.2d at 170 ; State v. Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981).1 Although these more recent decisions announced an error preservation rule, the rule was more honored in the breach than the observance as the announced rule has not been enforced.

2022See, e.g., Albright, 925 N.W.2d at 150– 51; State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 , 388–89 (Iowa 2016); State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011); State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611 , 615–16 (Iowa 2004); State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999); Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 270 ; Geier, 484 N.W.2d at 170 ; State v. Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981).1 Although these more recent decisions announced an error preservation rule, the rule was more honored in the breach than the observance as the announced rule has not been enforced.

2022See, e.g., Albright, 925 N.W.2d at 150– 51; State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 , 388–89 (Iowa 2016); State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011); State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611 , 615–16 (Iowa 2004); State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999); Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 270 ; Geier, 484 N.W.2d at 170 ; State v. Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981).1 Although these more recent decisions announced an error preservation rule, the rule was more honored in the breach than the observance as the announced rule has not been enforced.

2022See, e.g., Albright, 925 N.W.2d at 150– 51; State v. Schlitter, 881 N.W.2d 380 , 388–89 (Iowa 2016); State v. Brubaker, 805 N.W.2d 164, 170 (Iowa 2011); State v. Truesdell, 679 N.W.2d 611 , 615–16 (Iowa 2004); State v. Greene, 592 N.W.2d 24, 29 (Iowa 1999); Crone, 545 N.W.2d at 270 ; Geier, 484 N.W.2d at 170 ; State v. Dickerson, 313 N.W.2d 526, 529 (Iowa 1981).1 Although these more recent decisions announced an error preservation rule, the rule was more honored in the breach than the observance as the announced rule has not been enforced.

2022See generally Rhoades v. State, 848 N.W.2d 22, 33 (Iowa 2014) (Mansfield, J., joined by Waterman, J., concurring specially) (“In some respects, we are using ineffective assistance as a substitute for a plain error rule, which we do not have in Iowa.”).

2021Cf. UE Loc. 893/IUP, 928 N.W.2d at 60 (“Our doctrine of error preservation ‘requires a party seeking to appeal an issue presented to, but not considered by, the district court to call to the attention of the district court its failure to decide the issue.’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Meier, 641 N.W.2d at 540 )).

2019See Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 2016). 3 motion in arrest of judgment to take back a plea that could be deemed unknowing or involuntary.” He requests us to preserve his right to obtain postconviction relief “[i]f this court believes the record is insufficient for a finding of ineffectiveness.” See State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192, 198 (Iowa 2010) (court may resolve claim on appeal if the record is adequate but if the court determines the claim cannot be addressed on appeal, the court must preserve it for a postconviction-relief proceeding, regardless of the court’s view of the p

2019See id.