State v. Burgess, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 99-1159) (12/19/2001). [1] Guilty pleas -- rights waived. Statute of limitations and speedy indictment claims are waived by an Alford plea. [2] Double jeopardy -- dismissal of "theft by misappropriation" charges, later charge and conviction of "theft by "theft by deception" charges. Even if the dismissal of "theft by misappropriation" constituted an acquittal of that charge, it was proper for the State to re-indict and convict defendant on charges of "theft by deception" arising from the same facts, as the two charges are not the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy.

State v. Cagley, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 00-927) (12/19/2001). [1] Hearsay -- excited utterance -- recanting domestic abuse victim statement. Given the standard of review -- deferring to the trial court's factual findings and affirming if substantial evidence supports them -- alleged domestic-abuse victim's statements, which she recanted in part in court, were properly ruled not to fall within "excited utterance" or "residual hearsay" exceptions by district court. (District court's ruling based on following: (1) time between statement and event not so great as to necessarily fail excited utterance test, but was long enough to permit fabrication of a story; (2) many of statements were in response to questions by officers; (3) declarant was of sufficient age as to lack natural spontaneity of statements attributed to declarants such as children; (4) declarant was not hysterical or even "highly emotional" in tape-recorded interview to which judge listened; and  (5) none of the written reports noted any unusual emotional condition that would support an excited-utterance finding. [2] Hearsay -- residual hearsay exception. District court's ruling that recanting witness's original statement did not fall within residual hearsay exception was supported by substantial evidence; predicated on findings that declarant was not inherently trustworthy because of her age and opportunity to fabricate the allegations in the context of the witness's recantation of the statements under oath along with an explanation of her motivation for the original statements.

State v. Jacobs, __ N.W.2d ___ (Sup. Ct. No. 00-1150) (Iowa 12/19/2001). [1] Resentencing -- scope of proceedings upon remand. Absent limiting language in the remand order, the district court was empowered to reconsider all aspects of the defendant's sentence except for legal restrictions on sentencing that were presented and decided in the defendant's first appeal. [2] Sentencing -- discrimination based on ADA status. ADA decision (Pennsylvania Dep't of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206, 118 S.Ct. 1952, 141 L.Ed.2d 215 (1998) mandates that specific services otherwise provided to prison inmates shall not be denied as the result of a disability. Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the sentence discriminated against him based on a real or supposed disability. [3] Aggregation of theft/forgery charges. While the State has discretion in deciding whether to aggregate