as to the essential elements of the offense. Ideal Mut. Ins. Co., 319 N.W.2d at 296. This limitation is necessary to satisfy the elements of issue preclusion. Id. at 294 (requiring issues to be “identical” and “material and relevant” and “necessary and essential” in both proceedings). Van Haaften argues the amount of her theft in excess of $10,000 is not an essential element of first-degree theft. The district court rejected the argument and awarded EMCC judgment for $66,749.21. First-degree theft is defined as the “theft of property exceeding ten thousand dollars in value.” Iowa Code § 714.2. Theft is defined as “misappropriatfion] [of] property ... in the person’s possession or control.” Id. § 714.1. First-degree theft thus consists of two essential elements: (1) the misappr .1987) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fletcher, No. 502-CV-493-H3,
holding that defendant was entitled to withdraw guilty plea upon habeas corpus proceedings where he pled guilty in exchange for an illegal sentence holding that the defendants guilty plea was valid where the district court carefully questioned the defendant about whether he understood the consequences of his guilty plea holding defendant who pled guilty to embezzling 957000 was not precluded from contesting damages in the civil action because the amount was not a material fact of the indictment on which the guilty plea was based holding circuit court had subject matter jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea where defendant was not indicted for the charge to which he pled guilty but signed a sentencing sheet which established defendant was notified of the charge to which he pled guilty holding that a defendants guilty plea was unconditional where the guilty plea was not in writing and the government did not consent to it being conditional