State v. Hess
| Decision Date | 29 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 21-0079 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Cameron James HESS, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin (argued), Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
In this appeal, a defendant—who at age seventeen confessed to sexually abusing three children—was prosecuted in district court, convicted on four class "B" felony counts, and sentenced at age twenty. The district court suspended his sentence of incarceration and placed him on probation without suspending his lifetime special sentence under Iowa Code section 903B.1 or his sex offender registration requirement under chapter 692B. The defendant argued in district court that the sex offender registration requirement was unconstitutional under In re T.H. , which held that imposing the requirement on a minor in juvenile court proceedings constitutes punishment. 913 N.W.2d 578, 596 (Iowa 2018). The sentencing court ruled that In re T.H. does not apply to a defendant in "adult court" who is sentenced while an adult for offenses committed as a juvenile and instead followed State v. Aschbrenner , 926 N.W.2d 240, 249 (Iowa 2019), which held that the registration requirement imposed on an adult is nonpunitive.
The defendant appealed, renewing his constitutional challenge to the sex offender registration requirement and further arguing that the district court failed to exercise its discretion under Iowa Code section 901.5(13) to suspend that registration requirement and his lifetime special sentence. The State argues that we should distinguish or overrule In re T.H. and that the sex offender registration and special sentence are mandatory. We retained the case to decide these questions.
On our review, we hold that In re T.H. applies only to juvenile sex offenders whose cases are prosecuted and resolved in juvenile court, and we decline the defendant's invitation to apply its holding to a juvenile offender prosecuted and convicted in district court. Sex offender registration protects the public regardless of the age of the offender and is properly viewed as nonpunitive for adults as well as juveniles who are prosecuted in district court. As matters of first impression, we hold that the district court lacks discretion under Iowa Code section 901.5(13) to suspend the sex offender registration but does have discretion to suspend the section 903B.1 lifetime special sentence for offenses committed by a juvenile. Because the district court failed to exercise discretion, we remand for resentencing.
Defendant Cameron James Hess is now twenty-two years old. His parents separated years ago. Hess has several half- and step-siblings. Hess lived with his mother and stepfather and attended high school in Van Meter, but he spent significant time in De Soto with his maternal grandparents and in Des Moines with his father and stepmother. During his time at those households, Hess sexually abused children, including his family members.
Hess began sexually abusing his younger half-sister, A.H., in 2010. Hess abused A.H. through manual fondling and digital penetration of her genitals when she was four years old. In 2011, Hess's parents discovered the abuse and admonished him to stop. By all accounts, Hess stopped abusing A.H.
In 2016, Hess began abusing M.F., a neighbor in Des Moines. Hess forced M.F. to kiss him and forced oral sex on her repeatedly. Hess threatened to hurt her if she told anyone. M.F. was seven years old.
In early 2018, Hess abused C.H., his younger half-sister. Hess subjected C.H. to manual fondling of her genitals and forced oral sex. C.H. was five or six years old.
In May 2018, when M.F. was nine years old and Hess was seventeen, she reported his abuse. Des Moines Police officers investigated and discovered that Hess had also abused A.H. and C.H. Officers referred the three girls for forensic interviews at the Blank Children's STAR Center. Hess confessed to two instances of forced sexual contact with A.H., two with M.F., and two more with C.H.
The State charged Hess with six counts of second-degree sexual abuse, a class "B" felony, in 2018—two counts each arising from Hess's sexual contact with A.H., M.F., and C.H. Iowa Code §§ 709.1(1), .1(3), .3(2) (2017).1 At that time, Hess was seventeen years old. Although he was a juvenile, Hess's case commenced in district court because he was over age sixteen and was charged with a forcible felony. Id. § 232.8(1)(c ).
Hess filed a motion to transfer his case to juvenile court. The district court denied Hess's "reverse waiver" motion, noting that "[t]he crimes that the Defendant is accused of are severe and pervasive" and that "[t]he sexual abuse alleged in the six counts cover a time period of eight years ... [with victims] who were at various times 6, 7, and 10 years of age." The court relied in part on a juvenile court officer's report that Hess, now age eighteen, was "not a good candidate for placement in Juvenile Court" because he "cannot be placed in any juvenile treatment facilities due to his age" and was "eligible for supervision by the Juvenile Court for only 18 months." The court recognized that "the life consequences for the Defendant are severe" and that "[t]he consequences to the public are also severe if the Defendant is not properly deterred, supervised[,] and treated."
Hess waived his right to a jury trial, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on the minutes when Hess was age nineteen. On September 2, 2020, the district court found Hess guilty on four of the six counts.2 The district court conducted a two-day sentencing hearing by GoTo Meeting in January 2021. Hess was then age twenty. A defense expert, Dr. Luis Rosell, testified about juvenile recidivism and psychology, Hess's history and risk assessment scores, and testing referenced in the presentence investigation report. Dr. Anthony Tatman, director of the Fifth Judicial District Department of Corrections, testified on the same subjects. The court also heard from a victim's stepmother who said, "The emotional damage that this child has received is beyond anything I can describe to you." She noted that the child has "severe trust issues [and] mental health issues" and that their family is "continuously in counseling and therapy."
Defense counsel requested a deferred judgment and raised constitutional objections to imposing the sex offender registration requirement, relying on In re T.H. Defense counsel otherwise never argued that the court had discretion under Iowa Code section 901.5(13) to suspend the sex offender registration or special sentence. The prosecutor argued that the sex offender registration and section 903B.1 special life sentence were mandatory but recommended suspended prison sentences and five-year probation. The court denied Hess's request for deferred judgment and sentenced Hess to concurrent sentences of twenty-five years on each count, suspended the prison sentences, placed Hess on probation for five years, imposed the special sentence of lifetime parole applicable to class "B" felonies under Iowa Code section 903B.1, and required Hess to register as a sex offender under section 692A.103(1). The court gave no indication suggesting that it had discretion to suspend the special sentence or sex offender registration requirement.
Hess appealed, renewing his argument that it is unconstitutional under In re T.H. to require sex offender registration for offenses he committed as a juvenile. Hess also argues on appeal that the district court had discretion to suspend the special sentence and sex offender registration requirement and failed to exercise that discretion. The State argues that we should distinguish or overrule In re T.H. to reject Hess's constitutional claim and that the special sentence and sex offender registration are mandatory collateral consequences of his convictions. We retained the case.
"Our standard of review for rulings on constitutional challenges to a sex offender registration statute is de novo." Aschbrenner , 926 N.W.2d at 245–46.
[W]e must remember that statutes are cloaked with a presumption of constitutionality. The challenger bears a heavy burden, because [he] must prove the unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, "the challenger must refute every reasonable basis upon which the statute could be found to be constitutional." Furthermore, if the statute is capable of being construed in more than one manner, one of which is constitutional, we must adopt that construction.
Id. at 246 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Seering , 701 N.W.2d 655, 661 (Iowa 2005), superseded by statute on other grounds , 2009 Iowa Acts ch. 119, § 3 (codified at Iowa Code § 692A.103 (Supp. 2009)), as recognized in In re T.H. , 913 N.W.2d at 587–88 ). "[W]e review the district court's ruling on statutory interpretation for correction of errors at law." Maxwell v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Safety , 903 N.W.2d 179, 182 (Iowa 2017).
"A sentencing court's decision to impose a specific sentence that falls within the statutory limits ‘is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor....’ " State v. Wilbourn , 974 N.W.2d 58, 67 (Iowa 2022) (omission in original) (quoting State v. Davison , 973 N.W.2d 276, 289 (Iowa 2022) ). "But when the sentencing court fails to exercise discretion because it ‘was unaware that it had discretion,’ we typically vacate and remand for resentencing." Id. (quoting Davison , 973 N.W.2d at 289 ).
Hess raises both constitutional and statutory challenges to his special...
To continue reading
Request your trial