State v. Wrage
| Decision Date | 30 May 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 62408,62408 |
| Citation | 279 N.W.2d 4 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Wade Allen WRAGE, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Walter W. Rothschild, Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., and Ann Fitzgibbons, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, HARRIS, ALLBEE, and LARSON, JJ.
Must the same judge who imposed sentence be the one who reconsiders it under § 903.2, The Code, 1979? We think not and accordingly affirm the trial court.
Companion sections for so-called "shock probation" were enacted as a part of the 1977 criminal code revision. This suit involves § 903.2 (). The section provides:
For a period of thirty days from the date when a person convicted of a misdemeanor begins to serve a sentence of confinement, the court may order the person to be returned to the court, at which time the court may review its previous action and reaffirm it or substitute for it any sentence permitted by law. The court's final order in any such proceeding shall be delivered to the defendant personally or by certified mail. Such action is discretionary with the court and its decision to take such action or not to take such action is not subject to appeal. The provisions of this section notwithstanding, for the purposes of appeal a judgment of conviction is a final judgment when pronounced.
A companion statute, § 902.4, The Code, 1979, provides for reconsideration of a felon's sentence.
Wade Allen Wrage (defendant) pled guilty to operating a vehicle without the owner's consent, an aggravated misdemeanor under § 714.7, The Code, 1979. Thereafter Judge Peter Van Metre, presiding as the trial court, sentenced defendant to 180 days in the Black Hawk County jail.
The following week defendant moved to have his sentence reconsidered under § 903.2. The next day the trial court, Judge Dennis D. Damsgaard presiding, denied the motion. This appeal is from that denial. Defendant's sole contention on appeal is that it was error for any judge, other than the one who sentenced him, to act on his motion to reconsider.
I. The State suggests three alternative reasons why we should not reach the merits of defendant's contention.
First, the State points to the language in § 903.2 which makes trial court orders discretionary and not appealable. Here the State misapprehends defendant's contention. The defendant does not directly question whether shock probation should or should not have been granted. Rather, the defendant urges that the decision of the trial court was a nullity because it was entered by the wrong judge. The discretionary nature of the trial court's authority under this section is no reason why we should not reach the merits of the defendant's contention.
The State next argues that relief under this section cannot be granted upon motion because the section does not expressly provide for an application. But we think the section does not indicate the court must act Sua sponte or not at all. We know of no rule which prohibits parties from applying to courts for appropriate relief. It would be an absurd rule which would strip the court of authority to act merely because it occurred to a party to suggest it.
For its final reason why we should not reach the merits of defendant's contention, the State argues that the motion was premature. Defendant had not begun to serve his sentence when he moved that it be reconsidered. The State suggests there was no way for trial court to order him returned for reconsideration until he was serving. But we find no prohibition against filing the application before the sentence was being served.
Having rejected all three of the State's threshold arguments we turn to the merits.
II. In defendant's view, the power to reconsider sentences under § 903.2 is vested exclusively in the judge who imposed the sentence. He argues that practical necessity supports his view because chaos would otherwise ensue. The defendant believes that rejection of his interpretation would result in judges reviewing one another's sentences. This would in turn invite disharmony among judges, forum shopping, and disparity of punishment.
Defendant relies on Dunkelbarger v. Myers, 211 Iowa 512, 233 N.W. 744 (1930), in which a case was dismissed by one judge for failure to prosecute after it had been taken under advisement by another judge. In holding the dismissal was a nullity, we said:
Generally speaking, where there are several judges holding court at the same place at the same time, the action of any one of them in matters before him is the action of the court. But we have here a condition where a case was duly assigned, tried, and submitted to one judge and he took such case under advisement. In so doing we think he excluded all other judges in his district from making any orders which in any way would affect the substantial rights of the parties, or which would in any way interfere with . . . final disposition of the case. . . .
211 Iowa at 515, 233 N.W. at 745.
But the holding in Dunkelbarger was limited to its facts: dismissal of the case by one judge while it was under submission to another judge. It is not authority for the contention that any judicial determination in a case by one judge divests all other judges of authority to act on other matters in the same case. In the present case the act of Judge Damsgaard in no way interfered with anything under submission to Judge Van Metre. Dunkelbarger is not in point.
Defendant also relies on Central Savings & Loan Association v. Gaumer, 167 N.W.2d 656 (Iowa 1969), in which we held a party cannot resubmit a previously denied motion for summary judgment in the hope of getting a better result from a different judge. The present case does not involve resubmission of a matter already ruled upon. Wrage's motion for reconsideration had not been denied nor even submitted to any other judge.
Past cases have clearly distinguished the institution of the court from the office of a judge. For example we have said: "...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Seyler, In re
...maker until they received Judge Connolly's ruling.2 This rule applies only to matters under submission to the first judge. State v. Wrage, 279 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa 1979) (distinguishing Dunkelbarger because the matter decided by the successor judge was not under submission to another judge).3 ......
-
Tigges v. City of Ames, 83-469
...court may change its position during the progress of a case and prior to appeal, so as to apply the law correctly. State v. Wrage, 279 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa 1979) ("The action of one judge, sitting as the court, may have the affect of altering or setting aside a previous ruling by another judge......
-
Hoefer v. Wisconsin Educ. Ass'n Ins. Trust
...ruling of another district judge in the same case. Iowa Elec. Light & Power Co. v. Lagle, 430 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1988); State v. Wrage, 279 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa 1979); State v. Richards, 229 N.W.2d 229, 233 (Iowa 1975); Kuiken v. Garrett, 243 Iowa 785, 793, 51 N.W.2d 149, 154 (1952). When e......
-
State v. Howard, No. 4-688/04-0069 (IA 12/22/2004)
...to be entered in accord with the decision. State v. Kulish, 260 Iowa 138, 144, 148 N.W.2d 428, 432-33 (1967); accord State v. Wrage, 279 N.W.2d 4, 6 (Iowa 1979). D. Prosecutorial Finally, Howard alleges prosecutorial misconduct. We determine that error was not preserved on this issue. Howar......