Supreme Court of Iowa· 6/14/1989

State v. Brady

Citations

442 N.W.2d 57
1989 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 183
1989 WL 63545

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating “habitual offender statutes do not charge a separate offense,” but simply “provide for enhanced punishment on the current offense”
holding court costs are not punishment
“An admission by a defendant of prior convictions cannot be said to be a plea of guilty to an habitual offender ‘charge’ ....”
“An admission by a defendant of pri- or convictions cannot be said to be a plea of guilty to an habitual offender ‘charge,’ moreover, habitual offender statutes do not charge a separate offense.”
“An admission by a defendant of prior convictions cannot be said to be a plea of guilty to an habitual offender ‘charge,’ moreover, habitual offender statutes do not charge a separate offense.”
“An admission by a defendant of prior convictions cannot be said to be a plea of guilty to an habitual offender ‘charge,’ moreover, habitual offender statutes do not charge a separate offense. They only provide for enhanced punishment on the current offense.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Harris, Larson, Schultz, Lavorato, Neuman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

30 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.