State of Iowa v. Brian Keith Tully ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0004
Filed September 23, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIAN KEITH TULLY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Thomas G.
Reidel, Judge.
A defendant appeals his corrected habitual offender sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Mark J. Neary of Neary Law Office, Muscatine, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik and Darrel Mullins,
Assistant Attorneys General, Alan Ostergren, County Attorney, and Korie
Shippee, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Brian Tully challenges the district court’s determination that he received an
illegally lenient sentence following his guilty plea to possession of
methamphetamine third offense, as an habitual offender. He claims the original
sentencing court acted within its discretion in imposing an indeterminate five-year
prison term for the class “D” felony offense and asks for reinstatement of that
sentence. Because the resentencing court correctly determined the habitual
offender statutes at Iowa Code sections 902.8 and 902.9(3) (2013) require
imposition of a term of no more than fifteen years with a mandatory minimum
sentence of three years before eligibility for parole, we affirm.
The State charged Tully with third-offense possession of
methamphetamine, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section
124.401(5), and also alleged he qualified as an habitual offender under Iowa
Code section 902.8, having twice previously been convicted of felonies. Without
a plea agreement, Tully appeared in district court on August 19, 2014, and
pleaded guilty as charged.
On September 29, 2014, Tully was sentenced to a prison term not to
exceed five years, with a three-year mandatory minimum, and a $750 fine. The
district court suspended the prison sentence and placed Tully on supervised
probation. Neither Tully nor the State appealed. On December 5, 2014, the
district court revoked Tully’s probation after Tully pleaded guilty to attempted
burglary in Henry County. For the attempted burglary, Tully received a two-year
prison term, ordered to run concurrently to his previous sentence.
3
It was not until December 11, 2014, that the State filed a motion to correct
the sentencing order in the original methamphetamine prosecution. The motion
sought to amend the sentence because it did not reflect Tully’s habitual-offender
designation. On December 18, 2014, the district court corrected the illegal
sentence, finding that pursuant to Tully’s guilty plea, he should be committed to
the department of corrections for a period not to exceed fifteen years with a
minimum of three years before he was eligible for parole. The court also struck
the previously ordered fine, citing section 902.9(3). The court ordered the new
sentence to run concurrently with his attempted burglary term.
Tully now appeals.
We review sentencing proceedings for correction of errors at law. State v.
Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). A sentence is illegal if it is not
authorized by statute. State v. Allen, 601 N.W.2d 689, 690 (Iowa 1999). Under
our rules of criminal procedure, an illegal sentence may be subject to correction
at any time. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(5)(a); State v. Louisell, 865 N.W.2d 590, 595
(Iowa 2015). This principle applies even in cases where the sentence was more
lenient than allowed by law and correction results in a longer term. Allen, 601
N.W.2d at 690.
On appeal, Tully argues the district was not “prohibited from providing a
lesser sentence so long as the sentence was consistent with the parameters set
out in section 902.9.”
Tully is mistaken. Section 902.9(3) sets a maximum sentence of fifteen
years for habitual offenders. “The maximum term fixed by law is the limit in
4
section 902.9. The sentencing court lacks authority to establish a lesser
maximum sentence.” State v. Dohrn, 300 N.W.2d 162, 164 (Iowa 1981); see
also Iowa Code § 902.3. Moreover, the original sentencing court lacked authority
to suspend any portion of the fifteen-year indeterminate sentence. See State v.
Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 740, 742 (Iowa 2002). The fine was also illegal. See
State v. Halterman, 630 N.W.2d 611, 613 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001) (noting section
902.9 does not provide for a fine and finding no separate statute requiring
imposition of a fine). Because the original sentence was illegal and void, the
district court was required to impose the corrected sentence. See State v.
Ohnmacht, 342 N.W.2d 838, 842–43 (Iowa 1983) (“When the sentencing judge
departed from the legislatively mandated sentence, the pronouncement became
a nullity.”).
Tully also argues the judge who issued the original sentence should be
the judge to decide whether to correct the sentence or “explain the basis” for the
prior ruling. We find no support for this claim. All district court judges are
cloaked with the full jurisdiction of the district court, including entering or
correcting sentences. See Iowa Code § 602.6202. The original sentencing
judge would have had no discretion to impose a different sentence. We affirm
the corrected sentence.
AFFIRMED.