Schilling v. Iowa Dept. of Transp.
Decision Date | 12 June 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 00-0815.,00-0815. |
Citation | 646 N.W.2d 69 |
Parties | Robert M. SCHILLING, Appellee, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellant. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David A. Ferree, Special Assistant Attorney General, and Mark A. Hunacek, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Joseph J. Bitter of Bitter Law Offices, Dubuque, for appellee.
The Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) appealed from a district court order vacating its revocation of Robert Schilling's driver's license. The court of appeals affirmed, and we granted further review. We vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district court, and remand.
Robert Schilling pled guilty to eluding a law enforcement vehicle in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279 (1999). The district court accepted the plea, and on February 28, 2000, the court entered an order granting Schilling a deferred judgment. On March 23, the DOT sent Schilling a notice under Iowa Code section 321.209 that, as of thirty days from the notice, his driver's license would be revoked for one year, based on his eluding conviction. On April 14, 2000, Schilling petitioned for judicial review, contending a deferred judgment did not constitute a "final" conviction, as required by Iowa Code section 321.209. The district court agreed and ruled the DOT was without authority to revoke his license. The DOT appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed. We granted the DOT's application for further review.
A. The revocation statute. Iowa Code section 321.209 provides:
The critical language is "when such conviction has become final." This case turns on whether Schilling's deferred judgment is a final conviction.
B. The deferred-judgment statute. Iowa Code section 907.1 defines deferred judgments and deferred sentences:
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:
1. "Deferred judgment" means a sentencing option whereby both the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of a sentence are deferred by the court. The court retains the power to pronounce judgment and impose sentence subject to the defendant's compliance with conditions set by the court as a requirement of the deferred judgment.
An Ohio case explains the meaning of the terminology used in these cases:
The ordinary meaning of the word "offense" is "the doing that which a penal law forbids to be done or omitting to do what it commands." On the other hand, a "conviction" is "that legal proceeding which ascertains the guilt of the party upon which the sentence or judgment is founded." In other words, a conviction is a legal ascertainment that an offense has been committed. A conviction is not an essential element of an offense, although an offense is always a prerequisite to a conviction.
State v. Brantley, 1 Ohio St.2d 139, 205 N.E.2d 391, 393 (Ohio 1965) (quoting Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Baldwin's Century ed.1940)).
Schilling argues a deferred judgment is not a final judgment or final conviction, citing State v. Anderson, 246 N.W.2d 277, 279 (Iowa 1976) ( ), and State v. Stessman, 460 N.W.2d 461, 462 (Iowa 1990) (same). The word "conviction" is subject to various interpretations. See, e.g., State v. Brodene, 493 N.W.2d 793, 796 (Iowa 1992).
State v. Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Iowa 1986) (quoting State v. Hanna, 179 N.W.2d 503, 507-08 (Iowa 1970)). In Maguire v. Fulton, 179 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1970), we said:
Maguire, 179 N.W.2d at 511 (quoting 49 C.J.S. Judgments § 11, at 35 (1947)); see also Brodene, 493 N.W.2d at 796 ( ).
We have distinguished between a conviction used to increase a criminal penalty and one used to protect the public.
While we have construed the word "conviction" to have a relatively narrow and technical meaning where it appears in statutes used to enhance punishment, we have accepted a broader definition when protection of the public has been at stake.
Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d at 372. Federal cases agree. See, e.g., United States v. Samson, 533 F.2d 721, 722 (1st Cir.1976) ( ).
Id. at 822; see also State v. Vogel, 548 N.W.2d 584, 586-87 (Iowa 1996) ( ); State v. Moret, 486 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Iowa 1992) ( ).
The DOT contends the cases relied on by Schilling are distinguishable. For example, Iowa Beer & Liquor Control Department v. McBlain, 263 N.W.2d 226, 226-27 (Iowa 1977), held a deferred judgment was not a conviction for purposes of a liquor license suspension; that case, however, did not involve a suspension for the protection of the public. See Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d at 372. Anderson, another case relied on by Schilling, is also distinguishable. Anderson merely held that a defendant cannot appeal a deferred judgment because there is no final judgment; that case did not consider whether a deferred judgment was a final conviction. 246 N.W.2d at 277.
Schilling argues that "[a] deferred judgment is not a final judgment," and that is so, but the statute does not require a final judgment—only a final conviction. There is clearly a difference. See Brodene, 493 N.W.2d at 796-97 ( ). Schilling argues that if the DOT "feel[s] that the entry of a guilty plea is the act which triggers [its] right to revoke, [then] [w]hy not the mere filing of a charge?" We reject this argument; the statute requires more than a mere charge, but less than a final judgment. Iowa Code section 321.209 requires more than a plea of guilty, and it requires more than a conviction. It requires a conviction that "has become final."
We have found no other Iowa statute referring to a "final conviction." However, federal cases have required the finality of convictions in immigration and naturalization cases, and we find those cases to be instructive. Under federal law, aliens "convicted" of a felony may not be granted permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(b)(1)(C)(ii). Federal courts have applied this rule in immigration cases involving deferred judgments and equivalent procedures. See, e.g., White v. INS, 17 F.3d 475 (1st Cir.1994) ( ); Yanez-Popp v. INS, 998 F.2d 231 (4th Cir.1993) (Maryland "probation before judgment").
These cases have adopted a test first formulated by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) for determining whether a "conviction" has been established. See White, 17 F.3d at 479 (citing In re Ozkok, 19 I. & N. Dec. 546 (BIA 1988); Yanez-Popp, 998 F.2d at 234 (same).
Ozkok, 19 I. & N. Dec. at 551-52.
Schilling does not argue he has not been convicted; he argues only that any conviction has not become final. Finality is also a significant factor in immigration cases. As the court in White stated, "Superimposed on the BIA's three-part test is an additional requirement: the `conviction' must have attained a sufficient degree of finality." Id. at 479 (citing Pino v. Landon, 349 U.S. 901, 901, 75 S.Ct. 576, 576, 99 L.Ed. 1239, 1239 (1955)). Under White...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnston v. Iowa Dep't of Transp.
...counts as a "final conviction" for purposes of mandatory license revocation under Iowa Code section 321.209 . Schilling v. Iowa Dep't of Transp. , 646 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Iowa 2002). Today, we reaffirm that holding with respect to administrative license revocations under Iowa Code sections 321......
-
In re Geltz
...of [the felon in possession statute,] where the defendant (as here) has not completed his term of probation.”); Schilling v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 69, 73 (Iowa 2002) (holding deferred judgment constitutes a conviction for driver's license revocation purposes); Kluesner, 389 N.W.......
-
Daughenbaugh v. State
...for postconviction relief. The court rejected the approach of Galloway and instead adopted the framework of Schilling v. Iowa Department of Transportation, 646 N.W.2d 69 (Iowa 2002), in determining that Daughenbaugh's guilty pleas amounted to “convictions” even though he received a deferred......
-
State v. Deng Kon Tong
...of judgment and sentence by a verdict of guilty or a plea of guilty.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Schilling v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 69, 71 (Iowa 2002). The second definition requires that postplea or postverdict judgment and sentencing have taken place. Kluesner, 389 N......