Iowa v. Tovar
Tovar was charged with operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, and was convicted after a bench trial. On appeal, he claimed that his first OWI conviction should not have been used to enhance the penalty for his current conviction because his prior conviction resulted from an uncounseled guilty plea, and he had not made a valid waiver of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel at the guilty plea proceeding. The district court and the court of appeals rejected Tovar's argument. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed, concluding that Tovar's waiver of his right to counsel was not a knowing and intelligent waiver because the court did not engage in a meaningful colloquy with Tovar about the usefulness of consulting an attorney before entering a plea; therefore, his prior conviction should not have been used for enhancement purposes in the present criminal proceedings.
Question Presented:
Does the Sixth Amendment require a court to give a rigid and detailed admonishment to a pro se defendant pleading guilty of the usefulness of an attorney, that an attorney may provide an
independent opinion whether it is wise to plead guilty and that without an attorney the defendant risks overlooking a defense?
