Thomas Patrick Olofson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa
This text of Thomas Patrick Olofson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa (Thomas Patrick Olofson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa) 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. 14-1400 Filed August 19, 2015
THOMAS PATRICK OLOFSON, Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G. Blane II,
Judge.
An applicant appeals the court’s denial of his application for postconviction
relief. AFFIRMED.
Andrea K. Buffington of Ranes Law Firm, West Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, and William A. Hill, Assistant Attorney General, Special Litigation
Division, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ. 2
MULLINS, J.
Thomas Olofson was sentenced to terms of incarceration on drug
charges. His sentences were suspended, and he was placed on probation. He
failed to attend meetings with his probation officer or maintain contact with his
probation officer until he was arrested on a probation violation complaint. The
district court revoked his probation and imposed the terms of incarceration. The
department of corrections calculated his credit for time served, denying him credit
for the time he had absconded from supervision and had no contact with his
probation officer. Olofson then filed an application for postconviction relief to
challenge the calculation of credit for time served under Anderson v. State, 801
N.W.2d 1, 9 (Iowa 2011).1 The district court denied and dismissed his
application. He has appealed.
The district court issued a thorough, fully reasoned, and well-written ruling,
concluding the department of corrections properly denied Olofson’s claim of
credit for the time he had absconded from supervision. Olofson’s claim seeks an
absurd result, contrary to the reasoning and intention of Anderson.
We affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d).
AFFIRMED.
1 The legislature has since amended Iowa Code section 907.3(3) to eliminate the credit applied in Anderson. See 2012 Iowa Acts ch. 1138, §§ 91–93.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Thomas Patrick Olofson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thomas-patrick-olofson-applicant-appellant-v-state-iowactapp-2015.