State of Iowa v. Rueben Lee Hickman
CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
Date FiledAugust 19, 2026
Docket25-0199
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-0199
Filed August 19, 2026
_______________
State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Rueben Lee Hickman,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County,
The Honorable Kathryn E. Austin, Judge.
_______________
APPEAL DISMISSED
_______________
Gary Dickey of Dickey, Campbell, & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout (until withdrawal) and
Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Buller, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Bower, S.J.
1
BOWER, Senior Judge.
Rueben Hickman appeals his conviction following his guilty plea to
third-degree harassment, a simple misdemeanor. He claims the district court
denied him due process in accepting the plea because the court failed to find
by a preponderance of the evidence Hickman was competent to stand trial.
Hickman has no right to challenge his guilty plea to a simple
misdemeanor offense. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2023). The supreme
court treated Hickman’s notice of appeal and brief as an application for
discretionary review and submitted it to us for consideration. See Iowa R.
App. P. 6.151(1). We are authorized, but not required, to grant discretionary
review if we determine “substantial justice has not been accorded the
applicant.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.106(2). The State urges us to deny
discretionary review because Hickman’s appeal was untimely as it was not
filed within ten days after judgment. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.72(2). We need
not reach the timeliness issue because Hickman has been accorded
substantial justice. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.106(2).
Nothing in Hickman’s appellate brief or the record suggests an actual
deficiency in the plea proceeding. Moreover, we note this court recently
considered and rejected this claim on the merits relating to Hickman’s plea
on different charges. See State v. Hickman, No. 25-0188, 2026 WL 892488,
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2026) (affirming Hickman’s convictions after
pleading guilty to possession-of-a-controlled-substance and operating-while-
intoxicated charges upon determining “[t]he transcript of the competency
hearing refutes Hickman’s claim”). On this record, we exercise our
discretion not to grant discretionary review. We dismiss Hickman’s appeal
from his harassment conviction for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
2