Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant pled guilty to one count of third-degree sexual abuse as the result of a sex act that occurred involving Appellant, who was seventeen years old, and T.C., who was thirteen years old. On appeal, Appellant argued that his lifetime special sentence of parole and the lifetime requirement that he register as a sex offender violated the cruel and unusual punishment and due process clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s lifetime special sentence and lifetime registration requirement were not cruel and unusual punishment because a juvenile offender can petition the Iowa Department of Corrections for discharge from both the special sentence and the registration requirement. View "State v. Graham" on Justia Law

Deputy Dan Furlong prepared a warrant application to search a residence. The detective brought the application before a judicial officer and, without signing the application, orally swore to the trust of the application in the presence of the judicial officer. The judicial officer approved and signed the warrant. After the warrant was executed Defendants were charged with several drug charges. Defendants moved to suppress the results of the search based on the detective’s failure to sign the warrant application. The district court granted the motions to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Iowa Code 808.3 permits the warrant applicant to swear to the truth of the warrant application in the presence of the judicial officer even if, inadvertently, the applicant fails to sign it; and (2) in this case, the issuance of the warrant complied with section 808.3. View "State v. Angel" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions and sentences following two bench trials, challenging the underlying searches in each of the two cases. Specifically, Defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his motions to suppress firearms and drugs seized by his stepfather, a police officer with the Davenport Police Department, while his stepfather was off duty. Defendant argued that the searches were unconstitutional because his stepfather conducted the searches while exercising state action as a law enforcement official. The district court denied each motion to suppress. After bench trials, Defendant was found guilty of the charges. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motions to suppress, holding that Defendant’s off-duty police officer stepfather was acting in his private capacity, and not in his governmental capacity as a law enforcement officer, when he conducted the searches of Defendant’s person and vehicle. View "State v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to attempted murder. Defendant was sixteen years old at the time of the offense. Defendant was sentenced to twenty-five years in prison, including a mandatory minimum term of incarceration. Defendant was also ordered to pay $150,000 in mandatory restitution to the victim’s estate. Defendant was later resentenced and received immediate parole eligibility because the mandatory minimum period of incarceration had been deemed unconstitutional. The restitution was left in place. Defendant appealed, challenging the $150,000 in restitution to the victim’s estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the $150,000 mandatory restitution for juvenile homicide offenders is not facially unconstitutional; and (2) the $150,000 mandatory restitution was not unconstitutional as applied to Defendant. View "State v. Breeden" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of going armed with intent and willful injury causing bodily injury. Defendant appealed, arguing that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting submission of the going-armed-with-intent charge to the jury and failing to object to the jury instruction on going armed with intent on the ground that it omitted an element of the charged offense. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; but (2) defense counsel breached a duty in failing to object to the marshaling instruction for the going-armed-with-intent offense, and Defendant suffered prejudice as a result. Remanded. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) condemned a parcel of Landowner’s property to complete the construction of a highway. The compensation commission awarded Landowner $11,100 for the taking. Landowner filed a petition on appeal, arguing that, as a result of the taking, it could no longer use the remaining property for its business and, therefore, that IDOT’s taking left an uneconomical remnant. Landowner argued that the fair market value of the entire property before the condemnation - and thus the damage for the taking - was $200,000. The district court granted summary judgment for IDOT, concluding that Landowner’s petition was untimely. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Landowner’s uneconomical remnant challenge was untimely, and therefore, the district court did not have the authority to consider that claim. View "Johnson Propane, Heating & Cooling, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

In 2004, Gary Pettit pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse and third-degree kidnapping, Pettit was incarcerated at the Anamosa State Penitentiary. In 2015, the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) informed Pettit that he would be required to complete sex offender treatment. After a sex offender treatment program (SOTP) classification hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) affirmed the classification decision, concluding that Pettit was required to complete the SOTP. Pettit filed a petition for judicial review, claiming that the IDOC violated his due process rights by refusing to allow him access to counsel during the classification hearing. The district court determined that Pettit was entitled to counsel at the hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded, holding that the district court did not have authority to review the classification hearing under Iowa Code chapter 17A. Remanded for dismissal of Pettit’s petition for judicial review. View "Pettit v. Iowa Department of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with driving while barred. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, which the district court denied. Defendant was subsequently convicted. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress, arguing that a law enforcement officer, after making a valid traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion that an offense may being committed, must terminate the stop when the underlying reason for the stop is no longer present. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant and reversed, holding (1) when the reason for a traffic stop is resolved and there is no other basis for reasonable suspicion, Iowa Const. art. I, 8 requires that the stop must end; and (2) consequently, the law enforcement officer that stopped Defendant in this case violated Defendant’s rights under the Iowa Constitution. View "State v. Coleman" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to failure to appear for sentencing. Appellant filed a postconviction relief action asserting that his counsel provided ineffective assistance for several reasons. The district court denied relief. Appellant appealed, arguing that counsel was ineffective by allowing Appellant to plead guilty when a factual basis did not exist for the plea. The court of appeals concluded that it could not reach this issue on appeal because the record was insufficient to determine whether a factual basis existed at the time Appellant pleaded guilty. The Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals and affirmed the district court judgment, holding (1) a factual basis existed in the record for the court to accept Appellant’s plea; and (2) Appellant’s remaining claims were without merit. View "Yocum v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was on probation after having been convicted of drug offenses related to methamphetamine when his sister and father, concerned that he had relapsed, contacted his probation officer. Probation officers were dispatched to Defendant's residence and, with the father’s consent and without objection from Defendant, entered Defendant’s bedroom. Defendant admitted he had relapsed and used methamphetamine. The State commenced a probation revocation proceeding. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, claiming that the probation officers’ warrantless entry into his bedroom violated article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that assuming, without deciding, that Defendant had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his bedroom, the probation officers’ entry was justified by the special-needs doctrine, and therefore, the entry into Defendant’s room did not violate his rights under article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution. View "State v. Brooks" on Justia Law