State of Iowa v. Gita Shryvonne Thomas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0273
Filed February 5, 2025

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

GITA SHRYVONNE THOMAS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Russell G. Keast,

Judge.

A defendant appeals her conviction, challenging the denial of her motion to

dismiss for an alleged speedy-indictment violation. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Aaron Rogers, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Telleen, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2025).
2

SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.

On August 22, 2023, a police officer conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle

driven by Gita Thomas, who was driving with a barred license. The officer issued

Thomas a citation in lieu of arrest for the driver’s license violation. Thomas did not

appear on her court date. She was later arrested pursuant to a warrant for failure

to appear. Thomas made her initial appearance on September 20.

On October 12, the State charged Thomas by trial information for driving

while barred, habitual offender, in violation of Iowa Code sections 321.560 and

321.561 (2023). The charges were filed fifty-one days after Thomas received the

citation in lieu of arrest and twenty-two days after Thomas’s initial appearance.

Thomas moved to dismiss, arguing Iowa Rule of Criminal

Procedure 2.33(2)(a) (2023) required the State to file a trial information or indict

Thomas within forty-five days of her citation. Because that did not occur, Thomas

claimed the State violated her right to speedy indictment. The State resisted

Thomas’s motion, reasoning an amendment to the rule, which took effect July 1,

2023—before the stop of Thomas’s vehicle—clarified that the controlling date for

the forty-five-day speedy-indictment window is the date of the defendant’s initial

appearance. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.33(2)(a) (Supp. 2023). The filing occurred

twenty-two days after Thomas’s initial appearance, so the State claimed no

violation occurred. Adopting the State’s reasoning, the district court denied

Thomas’s motion.

The district court convicted Thomas after holding a stipulated bench trial on

the minutes of testimony. Thomas appeals, challenging the denial of her motion

to dismiss.
3

For the reasons set forth in our recent opinion in State v. Cole, the date from

which to measure the speedy-indictment rule’s forty-five-day window is the date of

initial appearance, not the date of arrest or citation in lieu of arrest. No. 24-0303,

2025 WL 52853, at *1-3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2025); Iowa R. Crim. P 2.33(2)(a)

(Supp. 2023). Because the State charged Thomas by trial information within forty-

five days of her initial appearance, the district court properly denied Thomas’s

motion.

We reject the challenge on appeal and affirm.

AFFIRMED.