State v. DeCamp, 622 N.W.2d 290 (Iowa 2/14/2001).  [1] Drug sentencing enhancements:  what is meant by prior violations of “this section”.  Defendant’s prior possession of controlled substance convictions under former Iowa statutes not bearing the same section numbers as the present one were valid predicate offenses notwithstanding the enhancing statute’s reference to prior violations of “this subsection”.  [2]  Prospectivity of enhancement statutes.  Recidivism laws do not define a new offense or add elements to existing crimes, nor do they punish for an old offense.  They merely enhance the punishment for a current offense.  Whether a new statute using old offenses to enhance a current crime applies in a given situation depends on whether the current offense occurred after the date the enhancing statute became effective.  The relevant “retrospective vs. prospective application” question is not when the priors occurred, but whether the legislature intended to include them in the enhancement scheme.  Prior possession of controlled substance convictions are intended to be used to enhance subsequently-occurring possession of controlled substance convictions.

State v. Houts, 622 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 2/14/2001). Failure to appear:  while awaiting sentence or pending appeal after conviction. Defendant who pled guilty but then failed to appear either his bond review hearing or for sentencing was properly chargeable with two counts of failure to appear under section 811.2(8) (1999). A guilty plea is a "conviction" for purposes of this statute; the legislature intended to punish as a felony a failure to appear while awaiting sentence on any charge (felony or misdemeanor). 

State v. Kirby, 622 N.W.2d 506 (Iowa 2/14/2001). Probation revocation:  due process requirements. Although probation revocation proceedings can be informal and even summary, revocation involves a serious loss of liberty requiring the provision of due process.  Specifically, the fact finder must provide a written statement, regarding the evidence relied on and reasons for the revocation, or its functional equivalent:  an oral statement of such findings on the record, made in defendant’s presence in open court.  Probation:  compliance with the law a condition. Whether or not expressed in the probation instructions, a fundamental condition of any probation is that the probationer shall not violate the law.  Burden of proof – revocation proceedings. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required in revocation proceedings; the requisite degree of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.  Failure to give reasons for selecting particular sentence instead of another. The district court does not have to elaborate on its reasons for rejecting alternative forms of punishment; instead, there must be compliance with R. Cr. P. 22’s requirement of a statement of reasons for the sentence imposed.   

State v. Lumadue, 622 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2/14/2001) [1] Sentencing:  allocution denied.   Defendant did not validly waive the right of allocution by the following phrase contained in his written stipulation to a bench trial:  “I waive personal conversation with the Court concerning this charge.”  Whatever was meant by the phrase in the context of a jury trial waiver, it had no bearing on post-trial sentencing proceedings including allocution.  [2] Sentencing:  reasons for sentence not given.  Neither the transcript nor the following boilerplate written language “[t]he Court has determined that this sentence will provide reasonable protection of the public.  Probation is denied because it is unwarranted” satisfied R. Cr. P. 22(3)(d) requirement that the court state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.   

State v. McDowell, 622 N.W.2d 305 (Iowa 2001) (2/14/2001) [1] Possession  of firearm enhancement element of drug charge:  constructive possession. When one’s constructive possession of a weapon is based on joint possession of the premises on which the weapon is found, the state must demonstrate defendant’s knowledge of the presence of the item.  Knowledge can be demonstrated as actual knowledge or by incriminating circumstantial evidence.  Where no such evidence is present and defense counsel did not move to set aside the jury’s finding on that count, counsel was ineffective and defendant must be resentenced so as to exclude the accompanying enhancement.  [2] Judges should instruct on knowledge element.  District courts are admonished to include the element of knowledge of the (enhancement) firearm’s existence and location, in instructions defining immediate possession or control of a firearm.