State v. Schminkey

Supreme Court of Iowa
597 N.W.2d 785 (1999)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The crime of theft under Iowa Code § 714.1(1) requires the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property. The mere act of taking and driving a vehicle without the owner's consent is insufficient, by itself, to establish this requisite intent.

Facts:

On the evening of May 17, 1997, William Schminkey consumed alcohol first at a party and then at a bar.
Schminkey, who did not know Dale Kimm, took Kimm's pickup truck from where it was parked without Kimm's permission.
Witnesses observed Schminkey driving the borrowed pickup erratically and at an excessive rate of speed.
Schminkey drove through a stop sign at a controlled intersection and collided with two other vehicles.
The collision resulted in the death of Jason Kray, the 19-year-old driver of one of the vehicles struck by Schminkey.
After the fatal collision, Schminkey continued driving for approximately one block before crashing the pickup into a fence.
Due to his intoxication, Schminkey later claimed to have no memory of the events after leaving the bar.

Procedural Posture:

The State charged William Schminkey in Iowa district court with homicide by vehicle, involuntary manslaughter, and theft of a motor vehicle.
Schminkey entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty via an Alford plea to the homicide and theft charges, in exchange for the State dismissing the manslaughter charge and recommending concurrent sentences.
The district court (trial court) accepted the guilty plea, finding a factual basis in the record, and subsequently sentenced Schminkey to consecutive prison terms.
Schminkey appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel because there was no factual basis for the theft plea.
The Iowa Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence.
The Supreme Court of Iowa (highest court) granted Schminkey's application for further review.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the mere act of taking and driving another person's vehicle without permission, while intoxicated, provide a sufficient factual basis to establish the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle, as required for a conviction of theft?

Opinions:

Majority - Ternus, Justice

No. The mere act of taking a vehicle without permission is insufficient to establish the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property required for a theft conviction. Iowa's theft statute, § 714.1(1), requires proof of an intent to permanently deprive, which distinguishes it from the lesser included offense of operating a vehicle without the owner's consent, § 714.7. Because intent must be inferred from the facts and circumstances, the record must contain more than just the unauthorized taking. Here, the record only shows that Schminkey took the truck and drove it recklessly while intoxicated before crashing it. There are no additional facts, such as an attempt to sell, alter, or abandon the vehicle in a way that would suggest an intent to permanently keep it. Therefore, the record lacks a sufficient factual basis for the intent element of the theft charge.

Dissenting - Carter, Justice

Yes. The record provided a sufficient factual basis for the theft charge because it established a prima facie case. The standard for a factual basis should be whether the State's evidence could withstand a motion for a directed verdict. Under long-standing Iowa precedent, possession of recently stolen property creates an inference of guilt for all elements of theft, including the intent to permanently deprive. The majority mistakenly distinguishes prior cases and misapplies others like Brainard, which focused on the adequacy of the plea colloquy, not the underlying factual record. By requiring more than a prima facie case, the majority's holding improperly prevents defendants who cannot recall events from entering into beneficial plea bargains.

Analysis:

This decision clarifies that the specific intent element for theft in Iowa requires proof of an intent to permanently, not just temporarily, deprive the owner of their property. It heightens the evidentiary burden for the prosecution when establishing a factual basis for a theft plea, particularly in cases that resemble 'joyriding.' The court's reasoning solidifies the distinction between the felony of theft and the lesser offense of operating without consent, making the defendant's state of mind regarding the duration of the taking the critical factor. This holding may make it more difficult to secure theft convictions in cases where a defendant takes a vehicle for a short, albeit destructive, ride without additional evidence pointing toward an intent to permanently keep it.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Schminkey (1999)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature