State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1982). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1982). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State of Iowa v. Peter Kelly Long (iowa, 2012-06-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State of Iowa v. Peter Kelly Long
Iowa · 2012 · confidence medium
If he does not do so, the objections are waived.” State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lam
Iowa · 1986 · confidence medium
It cites State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982), as authority for the proposition that a defendant who asserts the inapplicability of the habitual offender statute to his or her case must make the proper objection prior to trial of the underlying charges.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Clark
Iowa · 1984 · confidence medium
State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982).
cited Cited "see" State of Iowa v. King P. Flowers
Iowa Ct. App. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Cao Tri Nguyen
Colo. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202 (Iowa 1982) (question of law); Griffin v. State, 275 Ind. 107 , 415 N.E.2d 60 (1981) (whether offense is felony is purely question of legislative categorization; not a question of fact for jury but matter of law); State v. Thornton, 24 Wash.App. 881 , 604 P.2d 1004 (1979) (status of prior conviction is one of law; trial court properly refused jury instruction on issue); People v. Dacey, 166 Misc. 827 , 3 N.Y.S.2d 156 (1938) (all questions pertaining to prior conviction, except question as to the identity of the present defendant, were for the court); but …
cited Cited "see, e.g." State of Iowa v. David Edward Bruce
Iowa · 2011 · signal: see also · confidence medium
P. 2.4(8), 2.19(9); see also State v. Spoonmore, 323 N.W.2d 202, 203 (Iowa 1982).
STATE of Iowa, Appellee,
v.
Vincent Leroy SPOONMORE, Appellant
66462.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Aug 25, 1982.
323 N.W.2d 202
Douglas F. Staskal, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant., Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Richard L. Cleland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Legrand, Uh-Lenhopp, McCormick, McGiverin, Larson.
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published
LeGRAND, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of attempting to smuggle marijuana into the Muscatine County Jail in violation of section 719.8, The Code 1979 (furnishing controlled substances to inmates). The information charging him with this crime also asked that he be sentenced as an habitual offender under section 902.9, The Code, because he had previously been convicted of two other felonies, one in Iowa and one in Tennessee. By separate hearing, the same jury which had found defendant guilty of the marijuana charge found him to be the person who had committed the previous felonies. He was accordingly sentenced to serve a term of not more than fifteen years pursuant to section 902.9, The Code 1979.

Defendant appeals on the sole ground that the sentence imposed under section 902.9, The Code, is void because the record does not show that the crime for which he was convicted in Tennessee is a felony. As part of his argument defendant urges error because the trial court permitted the jury to determine if the prior convictions were felonies, a matter which should be determined by the court.

Defendant is right in claiming he can be sentenced as an habitual offender only if it is first established that he has previously been convicted of two other felonies. An habitual offender is defined as:

[A]ny person convicted of a class “C” or a class “D” felony, who has twice before been convicted of any felony in a court of this state or any other state, or the United States. An offense is a felony if, by the law under which the person is convicted, it is so classified at the time of his or her conviction.

§ 902.8, The Code.

The habitual offender statute does not create a crime; it merely enhances punishment. State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d 138, 143 (Iowa 1979) (citing State v. Hanna, 277 N.W.2d 605, 608 (Iowa 1979)).

We believe this matter is disposed of by defendant’s failure to make timely objection before trial of the underlying offense with which he was then charged — violation of section 719.8, The Code. State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d at 143; Iowa R.Cr.P. 18(11).

Smith holds that a defendant who asserts the habitual offender statute is not applicable must interpose his objections prior to the trial of the underlying charge. If he does not do so, the objections are waived. 282 N.W.2d at 143.

Defendant failed to challenge the applicability of section 902.8, The Code, as dictated by Smith and by Iowa R.Cr.P. 18(11). We therefore deem the issue now raised to have been waived.

Defendant also objects because the trial court permitted the jury to decide if the prior offenses were felonies. We agree this was error. The court must make that determination. Iowa R.Cr.P. 18(11). In this case, however, there was no resulting harm because of defendant’s failure to raise timely objection to the prior convictions.

The judgment is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.