IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1850 Filed September 25, 2019
MARK LEE JACKSON, Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Bradley McCall,
Judge.
Mark Lee Jackson appeals the dismissal of his application for
postconviction relief. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Kevin Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
After he was arrested for a parole violation, Mark Lee Jackson filed an
application for postconviction relief raising two claims:
(1) the State improperly placed him at the Newton Correctional Facility while
he was awaiting his parole-revocation hearing, and
(2) the State imposed improper disciplinary sanctions during that time.
We cannot reach the merits of either issue. As the district court decided,
the first claim is moot, and Jackson does not show the issue is one of broad public
importance likely to recur. The second claim does not warrant granting a petition
for writ of certiorari. Because we have nothing to review, we dismiss his appeal.
I. Facts, Prior Proceedings, and Supreme Court Orders
Jackson was arrested in August 2017 on an alleged violation of parole
conditions. At the time of his arrest, the district court ordered Jackson to be held
by the Polk County Sheriff with placement at the Newton Correctional Facility
(Newton) rather than the county jail. While held at Newton, Jackson allegedly
disobeyed prison rules. After several disciplinary hearings, Jackson received thirty
days of disciplinary detention, loss of phone privileges for one hundred and eighty
days, and a three-day loss of evening recreation periods.
In January 2018, Jackson filed a self-represented application for
postconviction relief alleging (1) deprivation of his due process rights while he was
placed at Newton awaiting his hearing, and (2) the illegal discipline taken against
him while he was in custody there. In May 2018, before the district court ruled on
Jackson’s application, an administrative law judge with the Iowa Board of Parole 3
decided he violated the terms of his parole, revoked his parole status, and
transferred his custody to the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections.
Then, in October 2018, the district court dismissed Jackson’s application for
postconviction relief. The court ruled: “Because Jackson has now been remanded
to the custody of the Department of Corrections, the issues related to his pre-
parole hearing detention are academic and moot.” The court also decided the
disciplinary action taken against Jackson did not amount to a deprivation of a
sufficient liberty interest to justify granting the relief requested. Jackson filed a
notice of appeal.
After Jackson and the State filed their briefs, the Iowa Supreme Court
issued an order stating: “Review of prison disciplinary matters is by writ of
certiorari. See Iowa Code §§ 822.2(1)(f), 822.9 [(2018)].” The order asked
Jackson to file a statement addressing whether he had an appeal as a matter of
right on his claim the State illegally placed him at Newton before his revocation
hearing.
In his statement, Jackson’s counsel asked the court to decide both issues
raised in the postconviction relief appeal “without a new and separate action under
a writ of certiorari.” In its response, the State argued the disciplinary proceedings
should be reviewed under section 822.2(1)(f) with review by writ of certiorari under
section 822.9. The State conceded Jackson could appeal as a matter of right from
his placement at Newton. In May 2019, the supreme court ordered Jackson’s
statement and the State’s response about certiorari review be submitted with the
appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Two months later, the supreme court
transferred the case to our court. 4
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review postconviction-relief rulings for correction of errors at law.
Franklin v. State, 905 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 2017). When a prisoner claims the
State imposed discipline in violation of his constitutional rights, we review his claim
in light of the totality of the circumstances. Mark v. State, 556 N.W.2d 152, 153
(Iowa 1996). That treatment is functionally equivalent to de novo review. Risdal
v. State, 573 N.W.2d 261, 263 (Iowa 1998). Our review of the mootness issue is
limited to the correction of legal error. See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130,
135 (Iowa 1988).
III. Legal Analysis
A. Placement at the Newton Correctional Facility
Jackson contends the State did not have authority to hold him in a state
prison as opposed to a county jail pending his parole-revocation hearing. See
Iowa Code § 908.2(2). The district court was unwilling to rule on the lawfulness of
Jackson’s detention at Newton. The court decided the issue was moot because
Jackson had already been remanded to the Department of Corrections. The court
noted it could no longer grant Jackson the relief he requested—placement in a
county jail rather than in a state prison.
On appeal, Jackson relies on In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Iowa 2001),
to suggest his claim falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine. He argues
the recurring nature of this issue affects “thousands of parolees” because
allegations of parole violations typically would be resolved before the placement
question could be decided in appellate review, citing to Rhiner v. State, 703
N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 2005). 5
A case is moot when the contested issue has become academic or
nonexistent and the court’s opinion would be of no force or effect in the underlying
controversy. M.T., 625 N.W.2d at 704. In deciding whether we should exercise
our discretion to review a moot action, we consider these factors: “(1) the private
or public nature of the issue; (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication to
guide public officials in their future conduct; (3) the likelihood of the recurrence of
the issue; and (4) the likelihood the issue will recur yet evade appellate review.”
State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002).
As the State contends, our analysis both begins and ends with the first
factor. After his arrest, a Polk County judge ordered Jackson be placed at Newton
pending his parole-revocation hearing.1 That order affected only Jackson.
Jackson did not make a record concerning a policy that would impact other
parolees. Because of the private nature of the issue, we decline to apply the
public-interest exception.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-1850 Filed September 25, 2019
MARK LEE JACKSON, Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Bradley McCall,
Judge.
Mark Lee Jackson appeals the dismissal of his application for
postconviction relief. APPEAL DISMISSED.
Kevin Hobbs, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ. 2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
After he was arrested for a parole violation, Mark Lee Jackson filed an
application for postconviction relief raising two claims:
(1) the State improperly placed him at the Newton Correctional Facility while
he was awaiting his parole-revocation hearing, and
(2) the State imposed improper disciplinary sanctions during that time.
We cannot reach the merits of either issue. As the district court decided,
the first claim is moot, and Jackson does not show the issue is one of broad public
importance likely to recur. The second claim does not warrant granting a petition
for writ of certiorari. Because we have nothing to review, we dismiss his appeal.
I. Facts, Prior Proceedings, and Supreme Court Orders
Jackson was arrested in August 2017 on an alleged violation of parole
conditions. At the time of his arrest, the district court ordered Jackson to be held
by the Polk County Sheriff with placement at the Newton Correctional Facility
(Newton) rather than the county jail. While held at Newton, Jackson allegedly
disobeyed prison rules. After several disciplinary hearings, Jackson received thirty
days of disciplinary detention, loss of phone privileges for one hundred and eighty
days, and a three-day loss of evening recreation periods.
In January 2018, Jackson filed a self-represented application for
postconviction relief alleging (1) deprivation of his due process rights while he was
placed at Newton awaiting his hearing, and (2) the illegal discipline taken against
him while he was in custody there. In May 2018, before the district court ruled on
Jackson’s application, an administrative law judge with the Iowa Board of Parole 3
decided he violated the terms of his parole, revoked his parole status, and
transferred his custody to the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections.
Then, in October 2018, the district court dismissed Jackson’s application for
postconviction relief. The court ruled: “Because Jackson has now been remanded
to the custody of the Department of Corrections, the issues related to his pre-
parole hearing detention are academic and moot.” The court also decided the
disciplinary action taken against Jackson did not amount to a deprivation of a
sufficient liberty interest to justify granting the relief requested. Jackson filed a
notice of appeal.
After Jackson and the State filed their briefs, the Iowa Supreme Court
issued an order stating: “Review of prison disciplinary matters is by writ of
certiorari. See Iowa Code §§ 822.2(1)(f), 822.9 [(2018)].” The order asked
Jackson to file a statement addressing whether he had an appeal as a matter of
right on his claim the State illegally placed him at Newton before his revocation
hearing.
In his statement, Jackson’s counsel asked the court to decide both issues
raised in the postconviction relief appeal “without a new and separate action under
a writ of certiorari.” In its response, the State argued the disciplinary proceedings
should be reviewed under section 822.2(1)(f) with review by writ of certiorari under
section 822.9. The State conceded Jackson could appeal as a matter of right from
his placement at Newton. In May 2019, the supreme court ordered Jackson’s
statement and the State’s response about certiorari review be submitted with the
appeal to the appropriate appellate court. Two months later, the supreme court
transferred the case to our court. 4
II. Scope and Standards of Review
We review postconviction-relief rulings for correction of errors at law.
Franklin v. State, 905 N.W.2d 170, 172 (Iowa 2017). When a prisoner claims the
State imposed discipline in violation of his constitutional rights, we review his claim
in light of the totality of the circumstances. Mark v. State, 556 N.W.2d 152, 153
(Iowa 1996). That treatment is functionally equivalent to de novo review. Risdal
v. State, 573 N.W.2d 261, 263 (Iowa 1998). Our review of the mootness issue is
limited to the correction of legal error. See Junkins v. Branstad, 421 N.W.2d 130,
135 (Iowa 1988).
III. Legal Analysis
A. Placement at the Newton Correctional Facility
Jackson contends the State did not have authority to hold him in a state
prison as opposed to a county jail pending his parole-revocation hearing. See
Iowa Code § 908.2(2). The district court was unwilling to rule on the lawfulness of
Jackson’s detention at Newton. The court decided the issue was moot because
Jackson had already been remanded to the Department of Corrections. The court
noted it could no longer grant Jackson the relief he requested—placement in a
county jail rather than in a state prison.
On appeal, Jackson relies on In re M.T., 625 N.W.2d 702, 704 (Iowa 2001),
to suggest his claim falls within an exception to the mootness doctrine. He argues
the recurring nature of this issue affects “thousands of parolees” because
allegations of parole violations typically would be resolved before the placement
question could be decided in appellate review, citing to Rhiner v. State, 703
N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 2005). 5
A case is moot when the contested issue has become academic or
nonexistent and the court’s opinion would be of no force or effect in the underlying
controversy. M.T., 625 N.W.2d at 704. In deciding whether we should exercise
our discretion to review a moot action, we consider these factors: “(1) the private
or public nature of the issue; (2) the desirability of an authoritative adjudication to
guide public officials in their future conduct; (3) the likelihood of the recurrence of
the issue; and (4) the likelihood the issue will recur yet evade appellate review.”
State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 234 (Iowa 2002).
As the State contends, our analysis both begins and ends with the first
factor. After his arrest, a Polk County judge ordered Jackson be placed at Newton
pending his parole-revocation hearing.1 That order affected only Jackson.
Jackson did not make a record concerning a policy that would impact other
parolees. Because of the private nature of the issue, we decline to apply the
public-interest exception. After Jackson went into the custody of the Department
of Corrections, no remedy could bring relief to his grievance over placement at
Newton. We affirm the district court’s ruling on mootness.
B. Disciplinary Sanctions
Jackson contends the State imposed improper disciplinary measures when
he was held at Newton. He challenges the district court’s conclusion the minor
1 In its ruling, the district court explained: This arrangement is apparently pursuant to an agreement whereby individuals who are taken into custody for an alleged violation of their parole are held at the Newton Correctional Facility rather than in the county jail while awaiting their parole hearing. Such agreements are specifically authorized by Iowa Code Chapter 28E. The actual agreement between the counties of the 5th Judicial District and the Department of Corrections has not been made a part of the record herein. 6
infractions did not invoke a protected liberty interest. Jackson argues the
sanctions should be expunged from his record.
Here, the proper vehicle to challenge these prison disciplinary sanctions is
a petition for writ of certiorari. See Iowa Code § 822.2(1)(f), 822.9. Certiorari
review is discretionary. Crowell v. State Pub. Def., 845 N.W.2d 676, 682 (Iowa
2014). We treat Jackson’s notice of appeal and briefing as a petition for writ of
certiorari. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.108. To merit review, Jackson must show the
district court exceeded its jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally. See id.
Because Jackson provides no valid ground to justify issuance of the writ, we deny
review and dismiss the matter. See Iowa Rs. App. P. 6.107(1)(d), 6.1001(2).
APPEAL DISMISSED.