Court of Appeals of Iowa· 1/10/2001

State v. McBride

Citations

625 N.W.2d 372
2001 Iowa App. LEXIS 32
2001 WL 23133

How courts have described this case

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

finding absence of prejudice based on disclosure in 2 Lipsey does not raise the issue under an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel rubric. 8 minutes of testimony and defendant’s admission
finding any breach of counsel’s duty was without consequence where even a full rule 2.8(2)(b) colloquy would not have prevented the defendant from receiving an enhanced sentence
finding absence of prejudice based on disclosure in minutes of testimony and defendant’s admission
“[T]rial courts have a duty to ensure that defendants knowingly and voluntarily stipulate to having prior convictions. In order to knowingly stipulate, a defendant should have an adequate grasp of the implications of his or her stipulation.” (citation omitted)
“When McBride stipulated to those [prior] convictions, he was not pleading guilty to a criminal offense. A rule [2.8(2)(b)] colloquy was not required for McBride to stipulate to the fact of his prior convictions.” (citing State v. Brady, 442 N.W.2d 57, 58 (Iowa 1989

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Streit, Vogel, Miller

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

8 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 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.