APR 2 8 2016
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
SUPREME COURT NO. 15-1827 CLERK SUPREME COURT
)
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
)
)
)
SUPREME COURT NO:15-1827
)
vs
SHAWN ALLEN JAMES,
Defendant-Appellant
)
)
)
)
)
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURTS
OF POLK COUNTY
THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBERT B, HANSON
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF IOWA
APPELLANTS FINAL REPLY BRIEF TO APPELLEES
PROOF BRIEF AND ARGUMENT
SHAWN ALLEN JAMES
Fort Dodge Correctional Facility
1550 L street
Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
PRO SE: DEFENDANT
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Bemklau v. Bennett, 162 N. W. 2d 432 (Iowa 1968)......................................................... 11
Pierce v. State, No. 1-623/10-1384 N.W. 2d (Iowa App September 8th 2011)................ 8
Pittman v. Richardson, 201 S.C. 433, 23 S.E. 2d 17, 18, (1942).......................................7
State v. Iowa District Court for Blackhawlc County, 616 N.W. 2d 575, 578[6]
(Iowa 2000).......................................................................................................................10,11
State v. Lowery, 822 N.W. 2d 739 (Iowa 2012).......................................................... 7,8,10
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W. 2d 378 (Iowa 2014)....... .......................................................4,6,7,8
Constitutions
The Iowa Constitution: Article 1 Section 6 (Laws uniform)......................................... 9,10
Iowa Constitution: Article 1 Section 17 (Cruel and Unusual Punishment)......................6
The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
(Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses).............................................................9,10,12
Rules
1. Iowa R. App. P. 6.1002(2)................................................................................................ 3
Statutes
Iowa Code Section 902.3....................................................................................................... 6
Iowa Code Section 902.7....................................................................................................4,7
Iowa Code Section 902.9.......................................
2
6,7
Iowa Code Section 902.12........................................................................4,6,8,9,10,11,12
Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a)........................................................................5,7,8,9,10
Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(b)......................................................................5,8,9,10,11
STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTEND FOR REVIEW
I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN DENYING THE
DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE
CONCLUSION THAT HIS FACTUAL AD LEGAL HISTORY WAS
INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM ANOTHER CASE.
II. WEHTHER THE IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS IS
PROPERLY CALCUALTING THE GOOD/EARNED TIME OF JAMES
AFTER HIS RE-SENTENCING.
Pursuant to Iowa Rule Appellate Procedure 6.1002(2), the DefendantAppellant hereby submits this reply to the states Proof Brief and Argument.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the case; This is an appeal by the Defendant-Appellant Shawn Allen
Janies from the denial of his Motion for Summary Judgment and Application for Post
Conviction Relief, following a hearing in the Polk County District Court, on August 21st
2015, the Honorable Judge Robert B. Hanson presiding. This case involves the legal
effect of a re-sentencing, removing the defendants mandatory minimum sentence
3
enhancement, and the denial of what now is the defendants mandatory statutory benefits
according to his new sentence.
Course of proceedings and disposition in the District Court:
On May 4th 2000 a jury found Mr. James guilty of Count I, Iowa Code Section 707.11
Attempted Murder and Count II, Iowa Codes Section 708.6 Terrorism with Intent. On
August 4th 2000, in Count I, James was sentenced to 25 years with a (Iowa Code
Section 902.12 mandatory minimum). In Count II he was sentenced to 10 years. In both
Counts he was sentenced to a 5 year mandatory minimum under Iowa Codes Section
902.7 for the use of a firearm. Those sentences were to be served concurrently.
(Ant) Page 1. Original Sentencing Order FECR 140763). He has been a inmate under the
control of the Iowa Department of Corrections since August 4th 2000. On November 17th
2015, James filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence based on the ruling in
State v Lvle. 854 N.W. 2D 3 78 (Iowa 2014). On March 13th 2015, Judge Richard G.
Blane III vacated James original sentence and re-sentenced the defendant, to 25 yrs in
Count I without the Iowa Code Section 902.12 mandatory minimum, and 10 yrs in
Count II. (Ann Page 4. Sentencing Order FECR140763 March 13th 2015 the Honorable
Judge Richard G Blane III).
On April 13th 2015 Mr. James filed another Motion to Correct Illegally Enhanced
Sentence. In this motion James specifically asked the court to amend or enlarge the
4
sentencing order of FECR140763 of March 13th 2015, by directing the Iowa Department
of Corrections to change the sentencing category pursuant to his new sentencing order.
App
Page 9. Pro Se Motion to Correct Illegal Enhanced Sentence FECR140763 April
13th 2015).
On April 23rd 2015, the District Court entered a ruling/order on the motion
denying James request.
App
Page 14. Order Denying Motion to Correct Illegally
Enhanced Sentence FECR140763).
On May 4th 2015, James filed an application for Post Conviction Relief with the
Iowa District Court in Polk County.(App Page 17. Application for Post Conviction
Relief PCCE078233 May 4th 2015). On May 14th James filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment, Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of
Material Facts, Memorandum of Authorities. (App Page 35. Motion for Summary
Judgment PCCE 078233), (App Page 37. Affidavit in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment PCCE 078233),
IApp
Page 38. Memorandum of Authorities PCCE 078233),
IApp Page 40. Statement of Material Facts, PCCE078233 May 14th 2015).
On August 21st 2015, a hearing was held on James Motion for Summary
Judgment. (App Page 81.Transcripts from hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment,
PCCE078233 August 21st 2015). On October 19th 2015, a decision was issued denying
James motion(s) and dismissing his Application for Post Conviction Relief.(App Page
14. Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment and Dismissing the Application for
5
Post Conviction Relief PCCE078233 October 19th 2015). A Notice of Appeal was filed.
\
(App Page 133. Notice of Appeal, PCCE078233 November 6th 2015).
Argument
I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY HELD THAT THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ACCURATELY CALCUALTED
THE SETNENCE LENGTH OF JAMES UNDER IOWA CODE SECTION
903A.2(I)(b). ACCORDING TO IOWA CODE SECTION 903A.2(l)(a)
SENTENCES WITH NO MANDATORY M1NIMUMS EARNED TIME
SHOULD BE CALCUALTED AT THE RATE SPECIFIED IN THAT
SECTION (1.2 DAYS FOR EVERY DAY SERVED).
Argument.
A.
The Re-sentencing Order of James Did Not Alter the Nature of James
Conviction. It Did However Alter The Nature of James Sentence.
The State of Iowa contends that the re-sentencing of James did not alter the
nature of his sentence, but altered the nature of his conviction. James disagrees. James
conviction was not deemed illegal but, James original sentence was, under the Iowa
Constitutions Article 1 Section 17 Cruel and Unusual Punishment. and State v. Lyle,
854 N. W. 2d 378 (Iowa 2014) and was subsequently vacated, [emphasis added] James
was re-sentenced on March 13th 2015.(App Page 3, Portion of Re-sentencing Hearing
Transcript March 13th 2015 FECR140763 page 27 lines 12-25, page 28 lines 1-25, page
29 lines 1-21, Honorable Judge Richard G Blane III speaking) (App Page 4. ReSentencing Order FECR 140763 March 13th 2015). The state seems to misunderstand
that the title of Iowa Code Section 902.12 is:
6
Minimum Sentence for Certain Felonies-Eligibilitv for Parole or Work-Release.
You cannot be convicted under this title or subsection, you can only be sentenced
pursuant to it. James was tried and convicted of Iowa Code Section 707.11 Attempted
Murder, he was not convicted nor sentenced pursuant to Iowa Code Section 902.12
(mandatory minimum). (Ann Page 4. Sentencing Order FECR140763 March 13th 2015).
With a vacated original sentence from August 4th 2000, James was entitled to a re­
sentencing hearing. The vacated original sentence automatically changes the nature of
James' sentence since James original sentencing order of August 4th 2000 FECR140763
no longer applies. At his re-sentencing James was adjudged guilty of violating Iowa
Code Section 707.11 Attempted Murder, and Iowa Code Section 708.6 Terrorism with
Intent, and sentenced pursuant to 902.3 indeterminate sentence, and 25 years for a class
“B” felony under Iowa Code Section 902.9 with a 902.7 mandatory minimum for the use
of the firearm. He was given credit for the time served since May 4th 2000. (App Page 3.
Re-Sentencing Hearing Transcripts page 27 lines 12-25, page 28 lines 1-25, page 29 lines
1-21, FECR140763 March 13th 2015 the Honorable Judge Richard G Blane III speaking)
and ( App Page 4. Sentencing Order FECR140763 March 13th 2015). The sentencing
order of FECR 140763 March 13th 2015, replaces James original sentencing order, and
now serves as the original.
“We agree normally that when a governor commutes a sentence, the new sentence
replaces the old sentence as of the day ofsentencing and that' the status of the [inmate]
is the same as though the sentence had originally been for the commuted term. ” id 742
State v. Lowery 822 N. W. 2D 739 at 742 (Iowa 2012), citins Pittman v Richardson. 201
7
S.C. 433. 23 S.E. 2D 17. 18 (1942).
B.
The legal effect of State v. Lyle. 854 N. W. 2d 378 (Iowa 2014). changes
the accumulation rate of earned time because it required a vacation of
his original sentence and he was re-sentenced without Iowa Code
Section(s) 902.12 and 903A.2(l)(b).
James argues that the legal effect [emphasis added] of
State v Lvle. 854 N. W. 2D 378 (Iowa 2014) changes the accumulation rate of his earned
time because James original sentence was vacated which caused him to be re-sentenced.
According to State v. Lowery 822 N. W 2D 739 (Iowa 2012). sentences with no
mandatory minimums accrue earned time at the accelerated rate specified in
Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a).
“This result gives effect to the governors intention expressed in his commutation
order that Lowery not be released immediately, but also gives effect- from the date of the
commutation order forward- to the plain lansuase of the statute which provides that
inmates servins a sentence with no mandatory minimum shall accumulate earned time
at an accelerated rate ” Id at 743
“However, because we conclude that the lesal effect of the sovernors
commutation order chanses the rate at which Lowery may accumulate earned time from
the date of the commutation order forward, we reverse that part of the District Courts
ruling that the commutation had no effect on the rate ofLowery’s accumulation of
earned time and the resulting tentative discharge. ” Id at 743
The Iowa Supreme Court awarded Lowery a change in the accumulation rate of
his earned time from Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(b) to 903A.2(l)(a) because of the
“lesal effect/ramification ” of the removal of his Iowa Code Section 902.12 (mandatory
8
minimum) from his sentence. In a nut shell the Iowa Supreme Court decided that the
defining characteristic between the Iowa Code Sections 903A.2(l)(a) and 903A.2(l)(b)
is whether or not a defendant is sentenced pursuant to Iowa Code Section 902.12. See
also Pierce v. State. No. 1- 623-1384 N. W. 2D (IowaApp September 8th 2011), (defining
Category “A” and “B” sentences. If a defendant is not [emphasis added] sentenced
pursuant to Iowa Code Section 902.12 then they accumulate earned time under Iowa
Code Section 903A.2(l)(a). The legal effect of “Lowery” is the same when it comes to
the legal effect of the “Lyle” defendants; for first step in the process includes vacating
their original sentence(s); and then re-sentencing them. If during re-sentencing no Iowa
Code Section 902.12 is applied, then the defendant is to accumulate earned time under
Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a) according to the new sentence and sentencing order;
per James new sentencing order dated March 13th 2015. James also asserts that his
Re-sentencing Order was never appealed by the state after re-sentencing, nor objected to
during the re-sentencing. Therefore they're not entitled to an appeal now or request of
anything in addition to what is already in that order. James is entitled to have his entire
25 yr sentence calculated under Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a).
9
C.
The District Court violated James United States Constitutions
Fourteenth Amendment “Equal Protection Clause', “Due Process” and
Iowas Constitution Article 1 Section 6 “Laws Uniform” by not ordering
that his earned time be calculated under Iowa Code Section 903A.2(1)
(a). It also violated James right to Due Process.
The District Court violated James United States Constitutions Fourteenth
Amendment and Iowa Constitutions Article 1 Section 6 Laws Uniform by not adopting
and/or applying the Lowery ruling and properly calculating James' earned time under the
proper Iowa Code Section of 903A.2(l)(a). The United States Constitutions Fourteenth
Amendment states the following:
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they
reside. No state shall make or enforce any laws which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law. Nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. ”
Iowa Constitution Article 1 Section 6 states the following:
“All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general
assembly shall not grant to nay citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities
which upon the same terms shall not belong to all citizens. ”
The Iowa Department of Corrections and State of Iowa insist that since James was
convicted of an offense listed under Iowa Code Section 902.12, that his earned time rate
accrues according to the Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(b). James points out that Lowery
10
was also convicted of an offense listed in Iowa Code Section 902.12; even after the
governors commutation and the order from the Supreme Court. The governors
Commutation Order read that he (“only”) [emphasis added] was commuting the Iowa
Code Section 902.12 portion of Lowery’s sentence, (see State v. Lowery 822 N. W. 2D
739 at 740 (Iowa 2012). Id at 740). He did not commute/pardon Lowery’s conviction,
therefore Lowery still stood convicted of an offense listed under Iowa Code Section
902.12 before and after the commutation from the governor and the decision from the
Iowa Supreme Court. The Iowa and United States Constitutions prohibit any special
privileges or immunities to just one individual. So if Lowery’s earned time can be
calculated under Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a) because his sentence no longer
contains a 902.12 mandatory minimum, even though he still stands convicted of an
offense listed in Iowa Code Section 902.12, then James' can also; especially since James
entire original sentence which contained Iowa Code Section 902.12 was deemed illegal
and ultimately vacated. Again, this shows that the defining characteristic between
903A.2(l)(a) and 903A.2(l)(b) is whether or not a defendant is sentenced pursuant to
Iowa Code Section 902.12. [emphasis added], not just an offense listed in it.
James asserts that the District Court and Iowa Department of Corrections
committed a Due Process violation by refusing to calculate his earned time under Iowa
Code Section 903A.2(l)(a) according to his sentencing order from March 13th 2015.
(sentences with no mandatory minimums accumulate earned time at the accelerated
11
rate). See State v. Lowery 822 N. W 2D 739 at 743 (Iowa 2012). By James having a
sentence not containing an Iowa Code Section 902.12, he automatically is to have his
earned time calculated under Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a) according to his new
sentencing order, unless otherwise decided by the court. See, State v. Iowa District
Court for Blackhawk County, 616 N.W. 2D, 575, at 578[61, (Iowa 2000).
“The sentencing of a defendant is an independent function that is the sole
province of the judiciary ”. Id at 575, 578
“In other words is the applicability ofsection 902.12 and 903A.2(l)(b) an
administrative decision for the Department of Corrections and Board ofparole, or is it a
a judicial decision for the sentencing court? For these reasons that follow, we think that
this question is one for the courts to decide. ” Id at 578[6]
Since only the court can sentence a defendant pursuant to 903A2(l)(b), as stated
above, the state should have appealed James sentencing order and asked that James
earned time be calculated under that section, they did not. This action subsequently
elongated James sentence without Due Process, therefore violating James' Fourteenth
Amendment. The Iowa Department of Corrections was to calculate James earned time
according to the new sentencing order, not add to, nor delete any part of it, especially
since the old sentence/sentencing order was vacated and a new sentence was issued on
March 13th 2015, that did not contain an Iowa Code Section 902.12. See
Bernklau v. Bennett 162 N.W. 2D 432 at 437 (Iowa 1968),
“The rule set out in Tirko v, Wainwright, supra is correct; the respondent contends
that the Division of Corrections can disregard the restrictive language of the Duval
County sentence and apply the statutory language literally. This, the Division has no
12
power to do administratively. The language of the sentence is clear as announced by the
judge. When such is the case the division of Corrections has no administrative authority
to delete any part of it or add any provision to it, even when to do so would more nearly
comport with the wording of the statute. ” Id at 437
The Department of Corrections and the State of Iowa is trying to piece together
two separate sentencing orders, by continuing to say “the underlying sentencing. ”
Again, there is no underlying sentence or sentencing order since the original sentence
was vacated. There is only one sentence and sentencing order, that’s the sentencing
order dated March 13th 2015, without an Iowa Code Section 902.12. (App Page 4. ReSentencing Order FECR 140763 March 13th 2015). Therefore it totally changes the
nature of James sentence. Therefore, by way of the Iowa Department of Corrections and
the State of Iowa denying James the proper earned time calculation, under the proper
section code, resulted in an elongated sentence, and a Due Process violation occurred.
CONCLUSION
James asks that this court grant his request an order his entire 25 year sentence be
calculated under Iowa Code Section 903A.2(l)(a) which will result in his immediate
discharge. James asks that this court also grant any and all relief deemed necessary by
this court for the reasons stated above and in his original brief to this court.
Resentfully Spbpiitted,
off ft
Shawn Allen James
Fort Dodge Correctional Facility
Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
13
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, SHAWN ALLEN JAMES. FURTHER CERTIFY THAT I SERVED A COPY
OF THIS DOCUMENT ON THE CLERK OF THE IOWA SUPREME COURT 1111
East Court Ave, Des Moines, la 50319, BY PLACING A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT
IN THE US POST OFFICE BOX HERE AT THE FORT DODGE CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY, IN FORT DODGE, IA, ON THIS
2
DAY, OF APRIL 2016.
Lj~iu-its
Shawn Allen Jam&s Pro Se
Fort Dodge Correctional Facility
1550 L street
Fort Dodge, la 50501
14
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLAINCE
1. This brief complies with the type- volume limitation of Iowa R. App. R
6903(l)(g) or (2) because:
•
This brief contains words per minute, excluding the parts of this brief
exempted by Iowa R. App. P6.903(l)(g)(l).
2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Iowa R. App. P
6.903(l)(e) and type-style requirements of Iowa R. App P. 6.903(l)(f) because:
•
This brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Times
New Roman font size 14.
Fort Dodge Correctional Facility
1550 L street
Fort Dodge, Iowa 50501
Dated 20^ , April 2016
15