By: Clark Kauffman
The Iowa Supreme Court on Friday refused to set aside a woman’s guilty plea in a dependent adult abuse case despite finding several defects in the plea-agreement process and the sentencing.
The case stems from Shannon Hightower’s 2020 arrest in Black Hawk County on felony charges of dependent adult abuse and theft in the second degree. Court records indicate Hightower, now 39, had been granted power of attorney over a dependent adult female who was committed to a Cedar Valley facility, and that she then misused the woman’s money, opened new credit cards in the woman’s name, and then misused those cards.
The victim in the case lost $16,000 through Hightower’s actions, police alleged.
In January 2022, Hightower signed a written guilty plea to the original charges. The agreement with prosecutors said the state would either follow a presentence investigation or recommend a suspended sentence of five years. The written agreement also included a sentence, initialed by Hightower, that said “if the court does not accept the plea agreement, I may withdraw my plea of guilty.”
At Hightower’s sentencing 11 months later, District Court Judge Linda Fangman rejected the plea and sentenced Hightower to five years in prison, citing Hightower’s failure to pay restitution prior to the sentencing.
During the sentencing hearing, Hightower immediately expressed her shock at the sentence, telling the judge, “Can I just have one day, please? I haven’t even told my kids goodbye. I had no idea this was happening, your honor. I had no idea. I had none … I was told that there was an agreement and that I was supposed to be getting five years suspended — five years probation.”
After Hightower filed notice of appeal, Judge Fangman set an appeal bond in the amount of $17,000 cash only and ordered that the clerk notify whoever posted the bond that none of the money would be returned and would instead be used to satisfy victim restitution in the case.
In its ruling Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that before a guilty plea can be accepted, the defendant must be advised of the maximum punishment – including financial penalties — for the offense to which they’re pleading guilty. The court noted that Hightower’s plea was inaccurate in that it stated the maximum fine was zero rather than $15,000.
The court, however found that despite that and several other defects in the plea deal, Hightower had failed to prove she would not have pleaded guilty had she fully understood the situation.
As for Hightower’s sentence, the justices found that Fangman improperly based her sentence on Hightower’s failure to pay restitution. “Prior to sentencing, Hightower hadn’t been ordered to pay restitution,” the justice noted. “The court’s reliance on Hightower’s failure to satisfy a nonexistent order was erroneous. Accordingly, resentencing is required.”
The justices also concluded the district court judge erred by ordering the forfeiture of the $17,000 appeal bond to satisfy victim restitution – an act the state later conceded was contrary to state law.
The court affirmed Hightower’s conviction, vacated her sentence, and reversed the district court’s decision to impose forfeiture requirements in the case. The justices remanded the case back to district court for resentencing before a different district court judge.
Justice Matthew McDermott filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Chief Justice Susan Christensen. McDermott wrote that Hightower most likely would not have pleaded guilty had the defects in her plea deal not existed and so should be allowed to withdraw her plea.
“The written plea agreement that the district court accepted in this case was not only confusing but materially inaccurate, and resulted in the court laying down a sentence far harsher than the one that Hightower reasonably understood the court could impose,” McDermott stated. “When it comes to defects, this plea contains multitudes. And these defects go to the very heart of the plea agreement.”
McDermott went on to argue that the Supreme Court’s “approval of
Hightower’s defective plea agreement, after all we’ve said in our rules
and cases about the enduring requirement of voluntary and intelligent
guilty pleas, makes our lofty pronouncements ring hollow.”
Full Article & Source:
Iowa justices uphold guilty plea in abuse case but set aside sentence
