State of Iowa v. Cameron Kyle Huseman
CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
Date FiledJune 24, 2026
Docket25-1163
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-1163
Filed June 24, 2026
_______________
State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Cameron Kyle Huseman,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County,
The Honorable Michael J. Shubatt, Judge.
_______________
APPEAL DISMISSED
_______________
Stuart G. Hoover, East Dubuque, Illinois, attorney for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Langholz, J.
1
LANGHOLZ, Judge.
Cameron Huseman pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors: operating
while intoxicated, first offense, and domestic-abuse assault impeding the flow
of air or blood. See Iowa Code §§ 321J.2(1)–(2)(a), 708.2A(2)(d) (2024). He
now tries to appeal, arguing that his plea was not knowing, voluntary, and
intelligent because his written guilty plea form did not present him the option
of requiring the court to be bound to the plea agreement. But we lack
jurisdiction over this attempted appeal following his guilty plea because
Huseman’s convictions are not “for a class ‘A’ felony” and Huseman has not
“establishe[d] good cause.” Id. § 814.6(1)(a)(3). We thus dismiss this
attempted appeal.
Our jurisdiction over appeals by criminal defendants is set by Iowa
Code section 814.6. See State v. Hightower, 8 N.W.3d 527, 534 (Iowa 2024).
Relevant here, “[s]ubsection 814.6(1)(a)(3) sets a general rule that there is no
right of appeal from a conviction where the defendant has pled guilty.” Id.
(cleaned up). The subsection “also specifies two exceptions: one for a guilty
plea for a class ‘A’ felony and another for a case where the defendant
establishes good cause.” Id. (cleaned up). The defendant “bears the burden
of establishing good cause to pursue an appeal of his conviction based on a
guilty plea.” State v. Tucker, 959 N.W.2d 140, 153 (Iowa 2021) (cleaned up).
Unless one of those two exceptions applies, we are “without jurisdiction to
hear the appeal, and we must dismiss the appeal.” Hightower, 8 N.W.3d at 534
(cleaned up).
Huseman pleaded guilty to a serious misdemeanor and an aggravated
misdemeanor—not a class “A” felony. So we only have appellate jurisdiction
if he “establishes good cause.” Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3). The statute does
not define good cause. But our supreme court has interpreted it to mean “a
2
legally sufficient reason.” Tucker, 959 N.W.2d at 153. What constitutes such
a legally sufficient reason is “context specific.” Id. And “at minimum,” the
reason must be one that “would allow a court to provide some relief on direct
appeal.” Id. So when an appellate court cannot provide relief because a
defendant requests immediate sentencing and waives the right to file a
motion in arrest of judgment after being adequately advised of the waiver’s
consequences, we lack jurisdiction. See id.
Huseman argues that good cause exists here—even though he did not
file a motion in arrest of judgment—because his written guilty plea did “not
inform him that the failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment would
preclude his right to appeal.” See Hightower, 8 N.W.3d at 536 (reaffirming
“that a proper advisory must advise the defendant that the failure to
challenge the plea by filing the motion within the time provided prior to
sentencing precludes a right to assert the challenge on appeal” (cleaned up)).
Huseman focuses his argument on the consequences described in the
advisory in his written guilty plea. And as the State concedes, that written
advisory is “very similar” to the inadequate advisory in Hightower. See id.
at 535. But unlike in Hightower, that written advisory is not the only advisory
given to Huseman by the court. See State v. Fisher, 877 N.W.2d 676, 681
(Iowa 2016) (noting it matters not “whether the information is imparted
through a colloquy or a written plea”); State v. Oldham, 515 N.W.2d 44, 46–47
(Iowa 1994) (considering written filings and oral colloquy together in
deciding adequacy of court’s advisory of consequences).
Both parties agree—and the record shows—that an unreported plea
hearing was held at Huseman’s request. A few hours after that hearing was
scheduled to start, Huseman’s written guilty plea was filed. And half an hour
later, the court issued an order stating the cases “came before the Court for
3
plea proceedings,” accepting Huseman’s “written guilty plea” to the
offenses, and setting the cases for sentencing. The order also memorialized:
[Huseman] was informed of the right to challenge the entry of the pleas of
guilt by filing a Motion in Arrest of Judgment with such a motion being
filed within forty-five (45) days of pleading guilty and no later than five (5)
days before the imposition of sentence. If these deadlines are not met, the
Defendant loses the right to challenge the guilty pleas on appeal.
We thus agree with the State that the order shows Huseman was adequately
informed by the court that failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment would
preclude his right to challenge his guilty plea on appeal. And because
Huseman did not file a motion in arrest of judgment after being adequately
advised, we cannot provide Huseman any relief. See Iowa R. Crim.
P. 2.24(3)(a)(2) (“A defendant’s failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty
plea proceeding by motion in arrest of judgment shall preclude the
defendant’s right to assert such challenge on appeal.”); see also Tucker,
959 N.W.2d at 153–54.
While Huseman recounts in his brief’s procedural and factual history
that the unreported plea hearing occurred and a follow-up order was filed, he
ignores the hearing and the order in his argument for good cause. And after
the State argued that the hearing and order defeated his argument that he was
inadequately advised of the appellate consequences of failing to file a motion
in arrest of judgment, he filed no reply brief offering any counterargument.
We cannot do so for him. See Hyler v. Garner, 548 N.W.2d 864, 876
(Iowa 1996).
Huseman has failed to meet his burden to establish good cause. And
so, we lack appellate jurisdiction under Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3).
APPEAL DISMISSED.
4