Masteller v. Board of Control of State Institutions, 49835
Decision Date | 15 December 1959 |
Docket Number | No. 49835,49835 |
Parties | Glen MASTELLER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BOARD OF CONTROL OF STATE INSTITUTIONS, Robert C. Lappen, Chairman of the Board of Control of State Institutions, John E. Bennett, Warden of the Iowa State Penitentiary, and C. E. Wilkens, Records Clerk of the Iowa State Penitentiary, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Norman A. Erbe, Atty. Gen., of Iowa, Hugh V. Faulkner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald L. Nelson, Story County Atty., Nevada George R. Larson, Asst. County Atty., Roland, for defendants-appellants.
James Lawyer, Des Moines, for plaintiff-appellee.
Action in mandamus by a prison inmate to require the defendants, Board of Control of State Institutions, the chairman of said board, the warden and records clerk of the state penitentiary to make an entry on the penitentiary records showing that his term will expire on January 27, 1960.
At a pretrial conference it was agreed the pleadings were superseded by the pretrial order, and the facts as therein set out constitute the record, as follows: (Court later amends pretrial order to read '1954 Code'.)
Trial to the court resulted in a decree for plaintiff and defendants have appealed.
I. The first assignment of error is that the court in imposing sentence under section 204.22, subd. 1, ignored the intention of the legislature that the indeterminate sentence statute, section 789.13, should control. The defendants contend that whenever the legislature intended the indeterminate sentence law should not apply it so clearly expressed itself. Plaintiff insists section 204.22 carries such clear expression. We agree no construction should be adopted which would nullify, destroy or defeat the legislative intent. 'Since the intention of the legislature, embodied in a statute, is the law, the fundamental rule of construction, to which all other rules are subordinate, is that the court shall, by all aids available, ascertain and give effect, unless it is in conflict with constitutional provisions, or is inconsistent with the organic law of the state, to the intention or purpose of the legislature as expressed in the statute.' 82 C.J.S. Statutes § 321; 50 Am.Jur., Statutes, Sec. 223; City of Emmetsburg v. Gunn, 249 Iowa 297, 86 N.W.2d 829. In Jefferson County Farm Bureau v. Sherman, 208 Iowa 614, 226 N.W. 182, 184, we said:
In Section 698.1 providing punishment for the crime of rape certain penalties are set out and it is then further provided that 'the court may pronounce sentence for a lesser period than the maximum, the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law to the contrary notwithstanding.' A similar provision appears in section 698.4 relating to assault with intent to commit rape. The same specific provision does not appear in Section 204.22 which, so far as material to this case, is: (Emphasis supplied.) We cannot ignore the provision of subsection 4 that probation and parole shall not be granted until the minimum imprisonment herein provided for the offense shall have been served. We are concerned at this point however with the words 'minimum imprisonment herein provided for the offense'. How could anything be plainer than that the legislature intended, in this statute, to provide for a minimum as well as a maximum sentence for this particular offense, the indeterminate sentence law to the contrary notwithstanding. It is a well-established principle that penal statutes must be strictly construed and doubts, if any, resolved in favor of the defendant. Lever Brothers Company v. Erbe, 249 Iowa 454, 87 N.W.2d 469; State v. Di Paglia, 247 Iowa 79, 90, 71 N.W.2d 601, 607, 49 A.L.R.2d 1223.
It is our duty to give to statutes the interpretation their language calls for and not to speculate as to the probable intent of the legislature apart from the wording used. Lever Brothers Company v. Erbe, supra.
It is quite obvious this recent enactment was intended to establish a minimum sentence, the provisions of the indeterminate sentence law to the contrary notwithstanding. The trial court had authority to and did impose the minimum sentence of ten years and the records at the penitentiary should reflect the action of that court when it conforms with the law. Cave, Keener v. Haynes, 221 Iowa 1207, 268 N.W. 39.
Section 204.22 of the Code of 1950 was repealed in 1953 by the Fifty-fifth General Assembly and the section in its present form was enacted. Before repeal the material part of the section read, 'and for any subsequent offense, (after the first) by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary not exceeding ten years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.' (Emphasis supplied.) Subsection 4 of Section 204.22 was a new enactment (55th G. A.). It changed the imprisonment portion from a sentence of not exceeding ten years to a term of 'not less than ten or more than twenty years.' It seems incredible that the legislature in its wisdom, having in mind the indeterminate sentence law, section 789.13, and having used in the repealed statute the words 'not exceeding ten years' would in the new statute change to the provision 'not less than ten or more than twenty years' unless it had definitely intended to provide a minimum sentence of ten years. Had it intended the indeterminate sentence statute to apply surely it would have said 'not exceeding twenty years.'
We hold the trial court was not in error in imposing imprisonment for a term of ten years.
II. Appellants further contend that sections 246.38, 246.39 and 246.43 do not apply in this case. They are the so called 'good time' statutes.
Section 246.38 is in part Appellee insists this section applies in his case and that under it he may be required to serve 'the full term for which he was sentenced, less good time earned and not forfeited.' There is no forfeiture indicated in the record. If he is correct, as the trial court held, his imprisonment should end on January 27, 1960. Appellants maintain sections 246.39 and 246.43 do not apply to convictions under chapter 204 of the 1954 code, I.C.A.
Section 246.43 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Wiese
...Code § 204.20 required sentences to a specific term of years rather than an indeterminate or indefinite term. Masteller v. Board of Control, 251 Iowa 234, 100 N.W.2d 111 (1959). Trial court had jurisdiction to resentence. II. Applicability of the new penalty. It is evident from the language......
-
State v. Rullestad
...Corp., 245 Iowa 193, 202--203, 61 N.W.2d 696. See also State v. Sabins, 256 Iowa 295, 297, 127 N.W.2d 107, and Masteller v. Board of Control, 251 Iowa 234, 238, 100 N.W.2d 111. In my humble opinion it is statutorily and constitutionally improper to hold that information elicited by an inves......
-
Mahlstadt v. City of Indianola, 49789
... ... state health department, testified for plaintiff, that ... many rats were there before a pest control organization started poisoning them, but he ... ...
-
Marriage of Huston, In re, 2-60079
...record made at trial. See Schnabel v. Display Sign Service, Inc., 219 N.W.2d 546, 549 (Iowa 1974); Masteller v. Board of Control of State Insts., 251 Iowa 234, 241, 100 N.W.2d 111 (1959). It therefore follows a defaulting party to a dissolution proceeding may seek appellate review on the me......