State v. Johnson
| Decision Date | 16 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-0109,19-0109 |
| Citation | 950 N.W.2d 21 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Irvin JOHNSON Jr., Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellant Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney General, Brian J. Williams, County Attorney, and Jeremy L. Westendorf, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the defendant's convictions for misdemeanor possession of marijuana merge with his convictions for felony eluding while possessing marijuana. The defendant threw marijuana out his car window during two separate police chases. He pled guilty to both possession of marijuana and eluding with marijuana, and the district court imposed concurrent sentences. He appealed, arguing the possession convictions merged with the eluding charges.
The State concedes that under the legal-elements test, it is impossible to commit felony eluding with marijuana without possessing it. The State argues the statutory scheme nevertheless demonstrates the legislature intended cumulative punishments for these offenses. Following transfer, the court of appeals held that the convictions merged in light of 2018 legislation eliminating the automatic revocation of driving privileges for possession of marijuana. The State applied for further review, and we granted its application.
On our review, we hold the convictions do not merge. The legal-elements test for merger is satisfied, but we disagree with the court of appeals holding that elimination of the automatic license penalty for possession requires merger. The remaining penalties and enhancements for possession demonstrate the legislature has prescribed cumulative punishments for the two offenses. Accordingly, for the reasons elaborated below, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district court's judgment and sentences.
This case arises from two separate police chases. On May 24, 2017, Waterloo Police Officer Tyler Brownell saw Irvin Johnson Jr. driving on Franklin Street. Officer Brownell recognized the vehicle and knew that Johnson's driver's license remained barred due to his status as a habitual offender.
Officer Brownell turned on his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop. When Johnson failed to pull over, Officer Brownell activated his siren. Johnson sped away and, during the ensuing pursuit, drove through three stop signs while exceeding fifty-five miles per hour in a twenty-five-mile-per-hour zone. The auto chase ended after Johnson made a hard turn into a driveway, sideswiped a parked vehicle, and fled on foot, jumping a tall fence while ignoring Officer Brownell's shouts to stop. Another officer found Johnson in an alley and arrested him.
Officer Brownell noted the vehicle interior smelled of "fresh" marijuana but found none inside. He searched near the vehicle and found an orange prescription pill bottle containing marijuana buds. Although the ground was wet, the bottle had no condensation, leading Officer Brownell to conclude the bottle had just landed there.
The second chase happened on February 16, 2018. Waterloo Police Officer Andrew Tindall was driving a marked squad car and noticed Johnson driving a gray Nissan SUV. Officer Tindall knew Johnson's driver's license remained barred. Officer Tindall drove behind Johnson and activated his emergency lights. Johnson rapidly accelerated, and Officer Tindall activated his sirens and pursued.
During this chase, Johnson drove approximately sixty miles per hour in a twenty-five-mile-per-hour zone and ran three stop signs. Officer Tindall saw Johnson toss a small plastic bag out of the window and radioed the location, where another officer found the bag containing marijuana. The chase ended when Johnson lost control of the Nissan, struck a tree, and was apprehended.
For each incident, the State charged Johnson with felony eluding while possessing marijuana, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(3) (2017); driving while barred, in violation of sections 321.561 and 321.555; and possession of marijuana, first offense, in violation of section 124.401(5). In one case, Johnson pled guilty to all three counts. In the other, Johnson pled guilty to felony eluding while possessing marijuana and possession of marijuana, and the district court dismissed the driving-while-barred charge. In both cases, the district court accepted Johnson's guilty pleas and imposed concurrent sentences of five years for the felonies and 180 days for the misdemeanors.
Johnson appealed, contending the marijuana possession convictions must merge with the eluding convictions. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which vacated his convictions in part and remanded for correction of an illegal sentence. The court of appeals determined that the marijuana possession charges were necessarily included offenses of felony eluding enhanced by the driver's possession of marijuana. As such, the court of appeals held that "these offenses must merge" and vacated Johnson's convictions for possession of marijuana. The State applied for further review, and we granted its application.
We review an alleged failure to merge convictions as required by statute for correction of errors at law. State v. West , 924 N.W.2d 502, 504 (Iowa 2019) ; State v. Love , 858 N.W.2d 721, 723 (Iowa 2015). We review constitutional double jeopardy claims de novo. State v. Lindell , 828 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 2013).
We must decide whether Johnson's serious misdemeanor convictions for possession of marijuana in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) merge with his felony convictions for eluding while possessing marijuana in violation of section 321.279(3)(b ).
We begin with the applicable statute governing merger. Iowa Code section 701.9 provides, "No person shall be convicted of a public offense which is necessarily included in another public offense of which the person is convicted." "This statute codifies the double jeopardy protection against cumulative punishments." State v. Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d 339, 344 (Iowa 1995).1 "The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits multiple punishments for the same offense" and thereby "prevents a court from imposing a greater punishment than the legislature intended." Id. The legislature defines the offenses and can provide for multiple punishments for separate offenses that apply to the same conduct. See Gamble v. United States , 587 U.S. ––––, ––––, 139 S. Ct. 1960, 1965, 204 L.Ed.2d 322 (2019) (). "If the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated because the legislature intended double punishment, section 701.9 is not applicable and merger is not required." Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d at 344.
Iowa Code § 321.279(3) (emphasis added). Iowa Code section 124.401 is included as an element of the eluding statute. Id. Section 124.401(5), criminalizing possession of marijuana, in turn provides:
It is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly from, or pursuant to, a valid prescription or order of a practitioner while acting in the course of the practitioner's professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this chapter.
Id. § 124.401(5). There is no element of section 124.401(5) that is not included in section 321.279(3). As the State concedes, one cannot violate section 321.279(3) () without violating section 124.401(5) (possession of marijuana). Under the legal-elements test, the crimes should merge.
But our cases require a second step to the analysis: "[W]hether the legislature intended multiple punishments for both offenses." Halliburton , 539 N.W.2d at 344. In 2003, on this basis, the court of appeals found that convictions for felony eluding while possessing marijuana, operating while intoxicated, and possession of marijuana did not merge. See State v. Eckrich , 670 N.W.2d 647, 650 (Iowa Ct. App. 2003). The court noted that marijuana possession resulted in automatic license revocation, whereas eluding while possessing marijuana did not. Id. The court of appeals concluded that "each statute was designed to address a separate form of illegal conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Montgomery
...acts with a child does not include only elements that are also elements of sexual abuse in the second degree. See State v. Johnson , 950 N.W.2d 21, 24 (Iowa 2020) (applying legal-elements test). Next, the jury's decision to acquit Montgomery of lascivious acts with a child and not sexual ab......
-
State v. Roby
...The legislature defines the offenses and can provide for multiple punishments for separate offenses that overlap. See State v. Johnson , 950 N.W.2d 21, 24 (Iowa 2020). "If the Double Jeopardy Clause is not violated because the legislature intended double punishment, section 701.9 is not app......
-
State v. Goodson
...801, 811 (Iowa 2017). We review the failure to merge convictions required by statute for correction of errors at law. State v. Johnson , 950 N.W.2d 21, 23 (Iowa 2020). We review any constitutional double jeopardy claim de novo. Id.III. Discussion.A. The Admissibility of Prior Act Evidence.1......
-
State v. Bryant
...I (involuntary manslaughter). All things considered, then, we do not think the legal-elements test has been satisfied. [1] See Johnson, 950 N.W.2d at 24. we think merger is contrary to the legislature's purposes as expressed "in the words of the Iowa Code." See State v. Goodson, No. 18-1737......