Antonio M. Johnson, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0598
Filed August 2, 2017
ANTONIO M. JOHNSON,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Kevin McKeever,
Judge.
Antonio Johnson appeals from the district court’s denial of his application
for postconviction relief, claiming his guilty plea was invalid and Iowa Code
section 903B.1 (2007) is unconstitutional. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Meyer, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. Potterfield, J.,
takes no part.
2
MULLINS, Presiding Judge.
Antonio Johnson filed a postconviction-relief (PCR) application to
challenge his conviction and sentence for sexual abuse in the third degree. He
alleged several grounds, all of which were denied by the district court. Johnson
appeals raising two grounds: (1) he did not know and understand he would be
sentenced to the life-time special sentence required by Iowa Code section
903B.1 (2007) and (2) the section 903B.1 special sentence is unconstitutional for
all persons convicted of class “C” felony sex offenses.
During the guilty plea proceeding, the district court engaged in this
colloquy concerning section 903B.1:
THE COURT: And, finally, there is a sentencing provision in
Chapter 903B which provides that you would be placed in the
custody of [the Iowa] Department of Corrections for life with a two-
year sentence possible for the first parole violation and not to
exceed five years for second or subsequent violations during your
lifetime.
Do you understand that provision?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: You have had an opportunity to talk to your
lawyer about that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you understand?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
Johnson now claims he did not understand the lifetime special sentence, he
would not have pled guilty had he understood, and counsel provided ineffective
assistance by failing to file a motion in arrest of judgment. He also argues his
low intelligence rendered him incapable of understanding.
Based on the record made at the guilty plea proceeding and the PCR trial,
we agree with the PCR court’s conclusion Johnson has not proven counsel failed
3
to perform an essential duty. We affirm on this issue without further opinion.
See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a).
Johnson also claims section 903B.1 is unconstitutional under both the
federal and state constitutions, therefore making his sentence illegal. He argues
State v. Kingery, 774 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009), should not control
because there is new research available to support his argument. Based on the
reasoning of the PCR court’s ruling and our decision in Kingery, 774 N.W.2d at312–15, and considering the reasoning of Kolzow v. State, 813 N.W.2d 731(Iowa 2012), and State v. Graham, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2017 WL 2291386, at
*9–11, *12–13 (Iowa May 25, 2017), we affirm pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(a).
AFFIRMED.