State v. IOWA DIST. COURT FOR BLACK HAWK COUNTY

• Decision Date: 07 September 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1441.,99-1441.
• Citation: 616 N.W.2d 575
• Parties: STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff, v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR BLACK HAWK COUNTY, Defendant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

616 N.W.2d 575

STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff, v. IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR BLACK HAWK COUNTY, Defendant.

No. 99-1441.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

September 7, 2000.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Joel Dalrymple, Assistant County Attorney, for plaintiff.

Lee M. Walker and John E. Billingsley of Walker, Knopf & Billingsley, Newton, for defendant.

Considered en banc.

TERNUS, Justice.

The question to be answered in this case is whether Iowa Code section 232.8(1)(c) (1999) precludes imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence required by Iowa Code sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b), commonly known as the 85% rule. We hold, contrary to the district court's ruling, that it does not. Therefore, we sustain the writ of certiorari, vacate the defendant's sentence, and remand for resentencing.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The defendant in the underlying criminal matter, Dezmond Thurmond, a minor, was charged with second-degree robbery, a class "C" felony. See Iowa Code §§ 711.1, .3.¹ Because the defendant was seventeen years old when the crime was committed and because second-degree robbery is a forcible felony, the district court rather than the juvenile court had jurisdiction. See id. § 232.8(1)(c) (stating that "[v]iolations of a child, age sixteen or older,... which constitute a forcible felony are excluded from the jurisdiction of the juvenile court"). The defendant's case was tried to a jury, which found the defendant guilty as charged.

Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to adjudicate law points, asking the court to rule that Iowa Code sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) did not apply to him. Section 902.12 requires that defendants convicted of certain forcible felonies, including second-degree robbery, serve 100% of the maximum sentence, subject to the provisions of section 903A.2. See id. § 902.12. The latter statute allows felons convicted of a section 902.12 offense to reduce their sentences by no more than 15% for good conduct. See id. § 903A.2(1)(b). These statutes in combination, then, require persons convicted of the specified forcible felonies to serve 85% of their sentences before they are eligible for parole or work release. The district court granted the defendant's motion and ruled that the 85% rule did not apply to a juvenile age sixteen or older convicted of a forcible felony in district court.

Thereafter, the district court sentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed ten years. See Iowa Code § 902.9 (setting forth a maximum sentence of ten years for a person convicted of a class "C" felony). The court did not impose the mandatory minimum sentence required by sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b).

The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari, contending that the district court erred in failing to impose the mandatory minimum sentence applicable to adults committing certain forcible felonies. The State asserts this error has resulted in an illegal sentence. See Iowa R. Civ. P. 306 ("A writ of certiorari shall only be granted ... where an inferior tribunal ..., exercising judicial functions, is alleged to have exceeded proper jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally."). The defendant now argues in response that the question of whether sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) apply is not ripe for determination.

II. Scope of Review.

We review the ruling of the district court on the defendant's motion to adjudicate law points for the correction of legal error. See State v. Mann, 463 N.W.2d 883, 883 (Iowa 1990). The appropriateness of the district court's action turns on the correctness of its interpretation of the relevant statutes. We review a district court's interpretation of statutes for correction of errors of law, as well. See State v. Terry, 569 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Iowa 1997).

III. Governing Principles of Statutory Construction.

"The primary rule of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intention of the legislature." State v. Casey's Gen. Stores, Inc., 587 N.W.2d 599, 601 (Iowa 1998). We presume that when the legislature enacts a statute that it intends "[a] just and reasonable result." Iowa Code § 4.4(3). Accordingly, the court interprets statutes so as to avoid absurd results. See State v. Ceron, 573 N.W.2d 587, 590 (Iowa 1997). In addition, we "construe statutes that relate to the same or a closely allied subject together so as to produce a harmonious and consistent body of legislation." Casey's Gen. Stores, 587 N.W.2d at 601.

IV. Ripeness of Issue.

Before we consider the merits of the issue before us, we must preliminarily address the defendant's contention that the issue is not ripe for determination. The defendant asserts that the 85% rule of sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) operates as a limitation on the executive branch, namely, the Department of Corrections and the Board of Parole. He contends, therefore, that the district court's only duty is to impose an indeterminate ten-year sentence pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.9. Not until the executive branch agencies determine whether the defendant may be released on parole or work release will the applicability of sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) be implicated, he argues.

A case is ripe for adjudication when it presents an actual, present controversy, as opposed to one that is merely hypothetical or speculative. See State v. Backes, 601 N.W.2d 374, 375 (Iowa App.1999); Black's Law Dictionary 1328 (6th ed.1990). The basic rationale for the ripeness doctrine

is to prevent the courts, through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties.

Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S.Ct. 1507, 1515, 18 L.Ed.2d 681, 691 (1967), overruled on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S.Ct. 980, 984, 51 L.Ed.2d 192, 199 (1977); accord 2 Am.Jur.2d Administrative Law § 485, at 474-75 (1994).

Our first step here is to determine whether the ripeness doctrine is even implicated. In other words, is the applicability of sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) an administrative decision for the Department of Corrections and Board of Parole, or is it a judicial decision for the sentencing court? For the reasons that follow, we think this question is one for the courts to decide.

Although the legislature prescribes the punishment for crimes, the actual sentencing of a defendant is an independent function that is the sole province of the judiciary. See State v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Shelby County, 308 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Iowa 1981). A sentencing court must

designate[] the maximum term established by statute. Unless the legislature has prescribed a minimum term which must be served, the duration of the sentence is determined by the parole board. When a minimum sentence is prescribed, however, the legislature ordinarily requires a judicial determination of its applicability.

State v. Wilson, 314 N.W.2d 408, 409 (Iowa 1982) (citation omitted). We turn now to the statutes at issue to determine whether they establish a mandatory minimum sentence.

Iowa Code section 902.12 provides that persons convicted of specified forcible felonies "shall serve one hundred percent of the maximum term of the person's sentence and shall not be released on parole or work release," except as otherwise provided in section 903A.2. Section 903A.2 in general allows inmates to reduce their sentences for good behavior, earning a reduction of sentence of one day for each day of good conduct and up to five additional days per month for satisfactory participation in designated activities. See Iowa Code § 903A.2(1)(a). Inmates sentenced pursuant to section 902.12, however, are limited to a total reduction of only 15% of their sentences. See id. § 903A.2(1)(b). The practical effect of these two statutes is to require that a defendant convicted of a forcible felony listed in section 902.12 must serve at least 85% of his sentence. See State v. Phillips, 610 N.W.2d 840, 841 (Iowa 2000).

The fact that section 902.12 was placed in chapter 902, governing the sentencing of felons, rather than in chapter 903A, governing the reduction of sentences for good conduct, indicates a legislative intent that section 902.12 operate as a minimum sentence as opposed to a restriction on the power of the parole board. See Wharton v. Iowa Bd. of Parole, 463 N.W.2d 416, 417 (Iowa 1990); Wilson, 314 N.W.2d at 409-10. Of course, section 903A.2 is found in the chapter governing reduction of sentences for good conduct time and so would function as a limitation on the executive agencies administering the sentence imposed by the court. But the express terms of section 902.12 require that section 903A.2 be considered as a qualification of the minimum sentence that must be served by felons subject to section 902.12. We hold, therefore, that these statutes together impose a mandatory minimum sentence and, accordingly, it is the court's obligation to determine their applicability to a particular defendant. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that the factual predicate for application of these statutes—the commission of one of the specified forcible felonies—is necessarily adjudicated in the criminal proceeding. See Wilson, 314 N.W.2d at 410 (noting that statutes imposing a mandatory minimum sentence generally require that the facts upon which the minimum sentence is grounded be established at trial). For these reasons, we conclude that the ripeness doctrine is not implicated and does not prevent our review of the issue in this case.

V. Applicability of Sections 902.12 and 903A.2(1)(b) to a Juvenile Prosecuted Under Section 232.8(1)(c).

As noted earlier, section 232.8(1)(c) places jurisdiction in the...