State of Iowa v. Roger McDaniel
This text of State of Iowa v. Roger McDaniel (State of Iowa v. Roger McDaniel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1538 Filed October 14, 2015
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROGER MCDANIEL, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Myron L.
Gookin, Judge.
Roger McDaniel appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal
sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of lascivious acts with a child
and sentencing. AFFIRMED.
Monte M. McCoy of McCoy Legal Services, Centerville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Heather Ann Mapes, Assistant
Attorney General, Richard F. Scott, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Roger McDaniel pleaded guilty to one count of lascivious acts with a child
in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8(3) (2011)1 on April 23, 2013. He was
sentenced to a five-year term of incarceration and fined under Iowa Code section
902.9(5), assessed a surcharge under section 911.1, and specially sentenced to
ten years’ supervision upon completion of his term of incarceration pursuant to
section 903B.2. The fine and surcharge were suspended. Mittimus issued
immediately. McDaniel appealed his sentence, and this court affirmed. See
State v. McDaniel, No. 13-1458, 2014 WL 1999121, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 14,
2014). On August 4, 2014, McDaniel filed a handwritten pro se motion for
correction of an illegal sentence in the district court. The district court denied the
motion. McDaniel appeals.2
McDaniel’s only claim on appeal is that the special sentence mandated by
Iowa Code section 903B.2 violates the protections against double jeopardy
provided by the United States Constitution and that his sentence is therefore
illegal. See U.S. Const. amend. V (“No person shall . . . be subject for the same
offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); see also State v. Lathrop, 781
N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 2010) (“Illegal sentences may be challenged at any
time . . . .”). We review de novo. See State v. Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa
2013). 1 “It is unlawful for any person sixteen years of age or older to . . . solicit a child to engage in a sex act . . . with or without the child’s consent . . . for the purpose of arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of either of them[.]” Iowa Code § 709.8(3). Following the legislature’s 2013 amendments, this provision is now found in Iowa Code section 709.8(1)(d) (2015). 2 The State asserts McDaniel should have filed for discretionary review rather than appealed. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.103(1); Iowa Code § 814.6. Though the State argues discretionary review is “more appropriate,” we consider the merits of this appeal. 3
The Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from “multiple
punishments for the same offense.” Id. McDaniel argues the term of
incarceration imposed under section 902.9 and the special sentence under
903B.2 are two different punishments and he has therefore been subjected to
multiple punishments for the same offense.
“In considering a double jeopardy claim within the multiple punishments
context, we are guided by the general principle that the question of what
punishments are constitutionally permissible is no different from the question of
what punishments the legislature intended to be imposed.” Id. at 4–5; see also
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366–68 (1983); State v. McKettrick, 480
N.W.2d 52, 57 (Iowa 1992). The legislature has the power to define criminal
offenses and punishments with “‘[f]ew, if any, limitations . . . imposed by the
Double Jeopardy Clause.’” Lindell, 828 N.W.2d at 4 (quoting Sanabria v. United
States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 (1978)). It is clear from the mandatory terms of section
903B.2 that the legislature intended the special sentence to be added to an
indeterminate term of incarceration imposed under section 902.9. See Iowa
Code § 903B.2 (imposing special sentence “in addition to any other punishment
provided by law”). Section 903B.2 does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause
of the federal constitution.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Iowa v. Roger McDaniel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-roger-mcdaniel-iowactapp-2015.