State of Iowa v. Patrick Ryan Nicoletto , 862 N.W.2d 621 ( 2015 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 14–1193
Filed April 24, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellant,
vs.
PATRICK RYAN NICOLETTO,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Davis County, Daniel P.
Wilson, Judge.
The State appeals the district court’s ruling that the defendant is a
wrongfully imprisoned person under Iowa Code section 663A.1.
REVERSED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellant.
Steven P. Wandro, Kara M. Simons, and Shayla L. McCormally of
Wandro & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellee.
2
HECHT, Justice.
Patrick Nicoletto, a former high school basketball coach, was
convicted of sexual exploitation by a school employee in violation of Iowa
Code section 709.15(3) (2011). Immediately following his sentencing
hearing, Nicoletto filed a notice of appeal, posted an appeal bond, and
was released from custody. He did not spend any time inside a state
penitentiary. On appeal, we determined a person holding only a
coaching authorization was not subject to prosecution under the statute
in force at the time, and we therefore reversed Nicoletto’s conviction.
State v. Nicoletto, 845 N.W.2d 421, 432 (Iowa 2014), superseded by
statute, 2014 Iowa Acts ch. 1114, § 1 (codified at Iowa Code § 709.15(1)(f)
(2015)). After reversal of his conviction, Nicoletto filed an application
requesting the district court enter an order finding Nicoletto is a
“wrongfully imprisoned person” who is entitled to compensation from the
State under Iowa Code section 663A.1 (2013). The district court granted
Nicoletto’s application. In this appeal, we determine whether defendants
who fail to prove they were incarcerated in a prison can nonetheless be
“imprisoned” within the meaning of section 663A.1.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On July 20, 2012, Nicoletto was convicted of sexual exploitation of
a student. See Iowa Code § 709.15(3) (2011). On October 3, the district
court sentenced Nicoletto to an indeterminate prison term of five years
and set a $7500 appeal bond. Within hours of his sentencing, Nicoletto
posted the appeal bond and was released from custody, never spending a
night incarcerated. 1 On April 11, 2014, we reversed his conviction,
1Thesentencing order is file stamped 2:59 p.m. on October 3, 2012. The appeal
bond was not file stamped until the following morning. Both parties agree, however,
3
finding that “a mere holder of a coaching authorization without a
professional license . . . does not fall under the sexual exploitation
statute.” Nicoletto, 845 N.W.2d at 422. We remanded the case to the
district court with instructions to dismiss the charges against Nicoletto.
Id. at 432.
On May 7, Nicoletto filed an application seeking the district court’s
determination that he is a “wrongfully imprisoned person.” See Iowa
Code § 663A.1(1) (2013). The State filed a motion to dismiss, asserting
Nicoletto’s release on appeal bond precluded recovery under chapter
663A because it meant he was never imprisoned. The court found
Nicoletto is a wrongfully imprisoned person under Iowa Code section
663A.1. The State appealed, and we retained the appeal.
II. Scope of Review.
We review a district court’s ruling on wrongful imprisonment
claims for correction of errors at law. State v. McCoy, 742 N.W.2d 593,
596 (Iowa 2007). We will uphold the district court’s findings if
substantial evidence supports them. Smith v. State, 845 N.W.2d 51, 54
(Iowa 2014). “We consider evidence substantial if a reasonable person
would accept the evidence as adequate to reach the district court’s
conclusion.” State v. Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d 428, 430 (Iowa 2006).
III. The Parties’ Positions.
A. The State. The State asserts that to qualify as a wrongfully
imprisoned person under section 663A.1, an individual must have been
imprisoned in a state penitentiary (as opposed to a county jail) for some
identifiable period of time. According to the State, the term “imprisoned,”
_______________
that Nicoletto posted the bond and was released in the late afternoon or early evening of
October 3, perhaps after the clerk of court’s office had closed.
4
as used in the statute, is unambiguous and requires that a defendant
actually spend time in a prison. The State distinguishes wrongful
conviction, which it concedes may have happened in this case, from
wrongful imprisonment, which section 663A.1 requires.
B. Nicoletto. Nicoletto likewise asserts the word “imprisonment”
is not ambiguous. He contends, however, that the term has a broader
meaning encompassing any restraint of liberty. Thus, in Nicoletto’s view,
time spent in the sheriff’s custody between sentencing and posting his
appeal bond qualifies as compensable wrongful imprisonment.
IV. Analysis.
We conclude the record does not contain substantial evidence
supporting the district court’s finding that Nicoletto was imprisoned
within the meaning of chapter 663A. Although Nicoletto was sentenced
to prison, he filed an appeal bond and therefore served no time in a
penitentiary. Further, although Nicoletto spent some time in the sheriff’s
custody—an amount not quantified in the record—before he posted the
appeal bond and was released, the record does not establish this
confinement took place inside a prison.
A. Section 663A.1 Generally. Chapter 663A enables wrongfully
imprisoned persons to receive compensation from the State. See Smith,
845 N.W.2d at 55; see also Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)–(3). Persons claiming
compensation for wrongful imprisonment must prove: (1) they are a
wrongfully imprisoned person; and (2) there is clear and convincing
evidence establishing either that they did not commit the charged offense
or any lesser included offenses, or that no person committed the offense
for which the individual was convicted. See Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)–(2). If
a district court concludes a person has proved both elements, it must
enter an order establishing the person is a wrongfully imprisoned person
5
and inform the person they may pursue a civil claim for wrongful
imprisonment against the State under Iowa Code chapter 669. Id.
§ 663A.1(3)(b). Damages available in a wrongful imprisonment action
include lost wages; restitution, fines, and surcharges paid; liquidated
damages of fifty dollars per day of wrongful imprisonment; and attorney’s
fees. See id. § 663A.1(6).
To establish that he is a wrongfully imprisoned person, Nicoletto
must demonstrate that he has met each of the criteria listed in section
663A.1(1):
1. As used in this section, a “wrongfully imprisoned
person” means an individual who meets all of the following
criteria:
a. The individual was charged, by indictment or
information, with the commission of a public offense
classified as an aggravated misdemeanor or felony.
b. The individual did not plead guilty to the public
offense charged, or to any lesser included offense, but was
convicted by the court or by a jury of an offense classified as
an aggravated misdemeanor or felony.
c. The individual was sentenced to incarceration for a
term of imprisonment not to exceed two years if the offense
was an aggravated misdemeanor or to an indeterminate term
of years under chapter 902 if the offense was a felony, as a
result of the conviction.
d. The individual’s conviction was vacated or
dismissed, or was reversed, and no further proceedings can
be or will be held against the individual on any facts and
circumstances alleged in the proceedings which had resulted
in the conviction.
e. The individual was imprisoned solely on the basis
of the conviction that was vacated, dismissed, or reversed
and on which no further proceedings can be or will be had.
Id. § 663A.1(1); see also Cox v. State, 686 N.W.2d 209, 212 (Iowa 2004)
(“Under the Iowa statute, a ‘wrongfully imprisoned person’ is identified by
means of five criteria.”). The parties agree Nicoletto proved the first four
6
criteria in this case; the only disagreement is whether he “was
imprisoned” within the meaning of Iowa Code section 663A.1(1)(e). 2
B. Imprisonment. “When interpreting a statute, we begin with
the words used in the statute.” Nicoletto, 845 N.W.2d at 426. “A
sensible, logical construction is the goal . . . .” City of Janesville v.
McCartney, 326 N.W.2d 785, 787 (Iowa 1982). We must determine
whether the word “imprisonment” in the context of section 663A.1 means
only confinement in a state penitentiary will support an award of
compensation under the statute, or whether some lesser restriction of a
defendant’s liberty will support such an award. See Iowa Code
§ 663A.1(1)(e).
The State asserts imprisonment does not begin at least until a
defendant walks through the doors of a state penitentiary. Thus, in the
State’s view, a defendant who spends time exclusively in a county jail
does not qualify for compensation under chapter 663A. Because
Nicoletto spent at most a few hours in the sheriff’s custody while his
appeal bond was processed, the State contends he cannot qualify as a
wrongfully imprisoned person. Nicoletto counters that because he was
sentenced to serve time in prison, his imprisonment began as soon as
the district court announced that sentence.
Iowa Code section 903.4 distinguishes between prisons and jails;
the county bears the cost of confinement in a jail, while the state bears
the cost of confinement in a prison. See Iowa Code § 903.4. The
2Although they dispute whether imprisonment as contemplated under the
statute occurred here, both parties also agree Nicoletto’s conviction is one “that was
vacated, dismissed, or reversed and on which no further proceedings can be or will be
had.” Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)(e).
7
duration of a sentence of confinement controls whether the defendant
serves time in a prison or a jail:
All persons sentenced to confinement for a period of
one year or less shall be confined in a place to be furnished
by the county where the conviction was had . . . . All
persons sentenced to confinement for a period of more than
one year shall be committed to the custody of the director of
the Iowa department of corrections to be confined in a place
designated by the director and the cost of the confinement
shall be borne by the state.
Id.; see also Iowa Admin. Code r. 201—50.1 (defining jail as a “place
administered by the county sheriff and designed to hold prisoners for as
long as lawfully required but not to exceed one year”).
We agree with the State that imprisonment under chapter 663A
means confinement in a prison, not a jail. To recover under the statute,
an individual must establish that he or she was convicted of and
sentenced for a felony offense or convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor
and “sentenced to incarceration for a term of imprisonment not to exceed
two years.” Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)(c). We acknowledge, of course, that a
defendant convicted of an aggravated misdemeanor can receive a lesser
sentence than the maximum indeterminate sentence not to exceed two
years. One could, for example, be sentenced to one year in jail for such
an offense. See id. § 903.1(2) (providing the maximum penalty for
aggravated misdemeanors and noting when a court “imposes a sentence
of confinement for a period of more than one year the term shall be an
indeterminate term”). And we recognize one year plainly does not exceed
two. But a defendant receiving a one-year sentence for an aggravated
misdemeanor would not qualify for compensation as a wrongfully
imprisoned person because, linguistically speaking, they were not
“sentenced to . . . a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years”—the
maximum indeterminate sentence for an aggravated misdemeanor. Id.
8
§ 663A.1(1)(c); see id. § 903.1(2) (“When a person is convicted of an
aggravated misdemeanor . . . the maximum penalty shall be
imprisonment not to exceed two years.”). In other words, we conclude
section 663A.1 allows recovery only for wrongfully imprisoned felons or
for wrongfully imprisoned aggravated misdemeanants who receive the
maximum sentence—“a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years.”
Id. § 663A.1(c); see id. § 903.1(2). Because incarcerated felons and those
serving two-year terms for aggravated misdemeanors serve time in
prisons rather than jails, section 663A.1(1)(c) supports our conclusion
that the word “imprisoned” means confinement in prison, not jail.
Had the legislature intended that time spent in jail would count,
we believe it would have said so expressly. See, e.g., State v. Allensworth,
823 N.W.2d 411, 415 (Iowa 2012); State v. Rodenburg, 562 N.W.2d 186,
188 (Iowa 1997) (per curiam); State v. Summage, 537 N.W.2d 692, 694
(Iowa 1995) (per curiam). Several other states expressly allow
compensation for those wrongfully detained in either a jail or a state
correctional facility. See, e.g., Cal. Penal Code §§ 4900, 4901(b) (West,
Westlaw current through 2015 Reg. Sess., ch. 2); Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann.
§ 13-65-101(5) (West, Westlaw current through 70th G.A., 1st Reg. Sess.,
ch. 65 (2015)); Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-401.5(4) (West, Westlaw current
through 2014 Gen. Sess.); Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.10(B) (West,
Westlaw current through 2015 Reg. Sess. cc. 1, 7, 8, 39, 61, 67 & 89).
We acknowledge the legislature could have expressly stated
“imprisonment” under the statute includes only confinement in a prison,
but it did not. Yet, the legislature’s decision not to include such an
express limitation does not resolve the ambiguity in section 663A.1(1)(e),
nor does it mean that one who has been wrongfully jailed has been
wrongfully imprisoned under the statute. Several other states’ statutes
9
providing a remedy for wrongfully sentenced or imprisoned persons
expressly limit relief to persons who have served time in a state
penitentiary. See, e.g., Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 258D, § 1(C)(iv) (West,
Westlaw current through 2015 1st Ann. Sess., ch. 12) (allowing recovery
only for those who were “sentenced to incarceration for not less than 1
year in state prison”); Mont. Code Ann. § 53-1-214(1) (West, Westlaw
current through Feb. 27, 2015) (providing for educational aid to
claimants who were wrongfully “incarcerated in a state prison for any
period of time”); N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 148-82(a) (West, Westlaw current
through 2015 Reg. Sess., ch. 1); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.48(A)(3)
(West, Westlaw current through 131st G.A., 2015 File 4) (requiring that
an applicant was “sentenced to . . . imprisonment in a state correctional
institution”). Additionally, several other states limit the universe of
persons eligible for compensation to those who are wrongfully convicted
of felonies. See, e.g., Ala. Code § 29-2-156(1) (Westlaw current through
2015 Reg. Sess., Act 2015-25); Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 258D,
§ 1(C)(ii); Miss. Code Ann. § 11-44-3(1)(a) (West, Westlaw current through
Mar. 29, 2015); Mo. Ann. Stat. § 650.058(1) (West, Westlaw current
through Apr. 8, 2015); Mont. Code Ann. § 53-1-214(1); Neb. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 29-4603(1) (West, Westlaw current through 2014 Reg. Sess.); N.C.
Gen. Stat. Ann. § 148-82(a); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2743.48(A)(1); Okla.
Stat. Ann. tit. 51, § 154(B)(1) (West, Westlaw current through 55th
Legislature, 1st Reg. Sess., ch. 27); Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§ 4.100.060(1)(a) (West, Westlaw current through 2015 Reg. Sess., ch. 4).
These similar statutes from other states support our conclusion that the
apparent ambiguity in section 663A.1 is best resolved by an
interpretation limiting the remedy to those who have served time in
prison.
10
Applying these principles to Nicoletto’s case, we conclude Nicoletto
has not established he was ever in prison. Although he received an
indeterminate prison sentence of five years, he promptly filed an appeal
bond and was released on the day he was sentenced. Further, although
the record suggests Nicoletto was “in the sheriff’s custody” while inside
the county jail building for some unspecified period of time on the
afternoon of the sentencing while his appeal bond was arranged, the
record does not establish Nicoletto spent any time in a prison.
Nicoletto contends chapter 663A makes him eligible for a remedy
even if he spent no actual time in prison. He asserts any loss of liberty
resulting from a wrongful conviction, however brief, will suffice as a
predicate for relief under the statute. See State v. Huff, 83 P.3d 206, 212
(Kan. 2004) (“[I]mprisonment and confinement are one and the same and
may be used interchangeably.”); Tipton v. State, 150 So. 3d 82, 85 (Miss.
2014) (“[I]mprisonment may occur in an actual prison, but it also can
include a state of confinement, which can occur anywhere and vary
widely in degree.”). In the broadest sense, a loss of liberty can occur
when a sentence of confinement is suspended. See Iowa Code § 907.1(4)
(authorizing “conditions set by the court as a requirement of the
suspended sentence”).
If, as Nicoletto contends, any restraint of liberty after imposition of
a prison sentence could constitute imprisonment under section 663A.1,
a defendant who is convicted of a felony and receives a suspended
sentence—but whose conviction is reversed on appeal—would be eligible
for compensation despite spending zero time in custody. We reject this
interpretation of section 663A.1 because it effectively deletes the word
“imprisonment” from section 663A.1 and is inconsistent with the plain
meaning of the words chosen by the legislature. Cf. Magee v. Comm’r of
11
Corr., 937 A.2d 72, 75 (Conn. App. Ct. 2008) (concluding time spent on
probation is not imprisonment).
We conclude as a matter of law on this record that, because it did
not occur in a prison, the temporary restraint of Nicoletto’s liberty for an
unspecified length of time on the afternoon of his sentencing while
waiting for the delivery of his appeal bond does not constitute
imprisonment for which a remedy is available under chapter 663A. 3 See
id. (rejecting an assertion that “imprisonment” encompasses any
restraint or confinement, and concluding that assertion has “no basis in
law or logic”); cf. Allensworth, 823 N.W.2d at 416–17 (concluding an
offender does not accrue earned time toward a prison sentence while on
supervised probation).
Our interpretation of section 663A.1 does not, as Nicoletto asserts,
punish defendants for exercising their right to post an appeal bond.
Rather, our interpretation of section 663A.1 advances the legislature’s
purpose: providing a remedy for those who cannot post a bond and who
therefore actually serve time in prison as part of a sentence of
incarceration for a felony or the maximum sentence for an aggravated
misdemeanor. The legislature could have chosen to allow compensation
for any wrongful conviction, but it did not. We must give effect to that
choice.
3We have endorsed a dictionary “restraint of liberty” definition of “imprisoned” in
the context of an action for termination of parental rights under Iowa Code section
600A.8(9). See In re A.H.B., 791 N.W.2d 687, 690 (Iowa 2010). However, A.H.B. does
not control our decision in this case. The purposes underlying chapter 600A—allowing
termination of parental rights in the best interest of children when parents fail to
assume the duties arising from parenthood, see Iowa Code § 600A.1—are vastly
different from those underlying chapter 663A. We conclude the separate statutes’
different purposes justify different understandings of the word “imprisoned” in the two
distinct contexts.
12
Because Nicoletto has failed to establish he is a wrongfully
imprisoned person under section 663A.1(1), we need not address the
“actual innocence” question under section 663A.1(2). See State v.
DeSimone, 839 N.W.2d 660, 665 (Iowa 2013).
V. Conclusion.
Nicoletto did not produce substantial evidence that he was
imprisoned within the meaning of section 663A.1. Accordingly, we
reverse the district court’s ruling.
REVERSED.
All justices concur except Appel, J., who takes no part.