Andreas C.K. Benford v. State of Iowa ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1629
Filed December 16, 2020
ANDREAS C.K. BENFORD,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Randy V. Hefner,
Judge
Andreas Benford appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review.
AFFIRMED.
Andreas C.K. Benford, Des Moines, self-represented appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John R. Lundquist, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and May and Schumacher, JJ.
2
MAY, Judge.
Andreas Benford appeals the dismissal of his petition for judicial review.
We affirm.
I. Background
In July 2009, Benford pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse and enticing
away a minor. See Iowa Code §§ 709.4(2)(c)(4), 710.10(2) (2009). The same
day, the district court sentenced Benford to an indeterminate term of incarceration
not to exceed fifteen years. The court also imposed the special sentence required
by Iowa Code section 903B.1. It provides that certain sex offenders
shall also be sentenced, in addition to any other punishment provided
by law, to a special sentence committing the person into the custody
of the director of the Iowa department of corrections for the rest of
the person’s life, with eligibility for parole as provided in chapter 906.
The board of parole shall determine whether the person should be
released on parole or placed in a work release program. The special
sentence imposed under this section shall commence upon
completion of the sentence imposed under any applicable criminal
sentencing provisions for the underlying criminal offense and the
person shall begin the sentence under supervision as if on parole or
work release. The person shall be placed on the corrections
continuum in chapter 901B, and the terms and conditions of the
special sentence, including violations, shall be subject to the same
set of procedures set out in chapters 901B, 905, 906, and chapter
908, and rules adopted under those chapters for persons on parole
or work release. The revocation of release shall not be for a period
greater than two years upon any first revocation, and five years upon
any second or subsequent revocation. A special sentence shall be
considered a category “A” sentence for purposes of calculating
earned time under section 903A.2.
Id. § 903B.1.
Benford took no direct appeal. But in the years since, he has repeatedly
sought judicial review of issues related to his sentences. Three of those cases
ended in appeals to this court. See Benford v. State, No. 19-1590, 2020 WL
3
__________ (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2020) (dismissing his appeal); Benford v.
State, No. 17-1253, 2018 WL 3912118, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2018)
(denying Benford relief); Benford v. Iowa Dist. Ct., No. 17-0272, 2018 WL 1433123,
at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2018) (deciding Benford’s constitutional challenge
was not ripe for adjudication and annulling the writ of certiorari).
The current case began in early 2019, when Benford sent a series of
petitions for declaratory ruling to the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC).1
Though his petitions were detailed, Benford’s core request was simple: He wanted
the IDOC to compute a “TDD”—a tentative discharge date—for his special
sentence under section 903B.1.
Because IDOC did not act on Benford’s petitions within sixty days, they
were deemed denied by operation of law.2 But the IDOC did send a responsive
letter to Benford. It identified a date (“7-15-19”) on which Benford would become
eligible to seek consideration of a discretionary discharge of his special sentence.
But the letter did not identify a date on which Benford’s “lifetime special sentence”
was expected to discharge.
1 One petition referred to the Iowa Board of Parole.
2 Iowa Code § 17A.9(8) (2019) provides:
If an agency has not issued a declaratory order within sixty days after
receipt of a petition therefor, or such later time as agreed by the
parties, the petition is deemed to have been denied. Once a petition
for a declaratory order is deemed denied or if the agency declines to
issue a declaratory order pursuant to subsection 5, paragraph “d”, a
party to that proceeding may either seek judicial review or await
further agency action with respect to its petition for a declaratory
order.
4
Benford sought judicial review. Benford claimed the IDOC’s refusal to
compute a discharge date was not consistent with Iowa Code section 906.15(1).3
It provides:
Unless sooner discharged, a person released on parole shall be
discharged when the person’s term of parole equals the period of
imprisonment specified in the person’s sentence, less all time served
in confinement. Discharge from parole may be granted prior to such
time, when an early discharge is appropriate. The board shall
periodically review all paroles, and when the board determines that
any person on parole is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a
law-abiding citizen without further supervision, the board shall
discharge the person from parole. A parole officer shall periodically
review all paroles assigned to the parole officer, and when the parole
officer determines that any person assigned to the officer is able and
willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen without further
supervision, the officer may discharge the person from parole after
notification and approval of the district director and notification of the
board of parole. In any event, discharge from parole shall terminate
the person’s sentence. If a person has been sentenced to a special
sentence under section 903B.1 or 903B.2, the person may be
discharged early from the sentence in the same manner as any other
person on parole. However, a person convicted of a violation of
section 709.3, 709.4, or 709.8 committed on or with a child, or a
person serving a sentence under section 902.12, shall not be
discharged from parole until the person’s term of parole equals the
period of imprisonment specified in the person’s sentence, less all
time served in confinement.
Iowa Code § 906.15(1).
In August, the district court entered an order denying relief to Benford. 4 This
appeal followed.
3 Benford also raises other arguments concerning his sentence. We agree with
the State that Benford’s other arguments are not properly before us here.
4 The district court’s August 2019 order resolved both this case (PCCV121511)
and a separate case numbered PCCV121013. Benford filed a separate appeal
from the dismissal of case PCCV121013. We resolved that appeal through our
opinion Benford, No. 19-1590, 2020 WL __________, also filed today.
5
II. Standard of Review
“On judicial review of final agency action, we review for errors at law.”
Houck v. Iowa Bd. of Pharmacy Exam’rs, 752 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Iowa 2008).
III. Analysis
We agree with Benford that this appeal turns on a question of statutory
interpretation.5 The question is whether Iowa Code section 906.15 required—or
even permitted—the IDOC to determine the date on which Bedford’s special
sentence under section 903B.1 will discharge.
After consideration, we answer that question in the negative. We find the
meaning of the Iowa Code in its words. See Doe v. State, 943 N.W.2d 608, 610
(Iowa 2020) (noting “in questions of statutory interpretation, ‘[w]e do not inquire
what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statute means’” and “[t]his is
necessarily a textual inquiry as only the text of a piece of legislation is enacted into
law” (first alteration in original) (citation omitted)). The words of section 903B.1 are
clear: its special sentence lasts “for the rest of the [offender’s] life.” So, as the
district court correctly observed, “there is no date by which the special sentence is
served in its entirety.”
It is true that, under section 906.15(1), “a person . . . sentenced to a special
sentence under section 903B.1 . . . may be discharged early from the sentence in
5 We acknowledge Benford also raises due process concerns. But we believe
Benford is only contending that his due process rights are violated through
improper interpretation and implementation of sections 906.15 and 903B.1.
Benford emphasizes that, “[t]o be clear[,] this is a case about statutory
interpretation” of section 906.15. Benford also states that his “whole argument” is
about the “language” of sections 906.15 and 903B.1. Likewise, we have focused
our analysis on statutory interpretation.
6
the same manner as any other person on parole.” (Emphasis added.) This
provides the parole board authority to discharge Benford’s sentence when the
board determines he “is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding
citizen without further supervision.”6 Iowa Code § 906.15(1). It does not mean
IDOC can or must determine in advance a particular date on which Benford’s
sentence must be discharged. See State v. Tripp, 776 N.W.2d 855, 858–59 (Iowa
2010) (noting an offender “may be released from parole [under the lifetime special
sentence] at any time” through “administrative decisions that have yet to be
made”).
But Benford argues section 906.15(1) also provides a “second way” for his
special sentence to be discharged. He focuses on the first sentence of
section 906.15(1), which states: “Unless sooner discharged, a person released on
parole shall be discharged when the person’s term of parole equals the period of
imprisonment specified in the person’s sentence, less all time served in
confinement.” In Benford’s view, this language creates “a mandatory duty” for
IDOC “to discharge him when he meets” certain “statutorily created criteria.”
Specifically, Benford argues, he is entitled to discharge when the time he has
served in prison plus the time he has served on special sentence parole totals
6 We note, however, section 906.15(1) requires certain offenders to serve a
mandatory minimum period before they are eligible for discharge. Iowa Code
§ 906.15(1) (“[A] person convicted of a violation of section 709.3, 709.4, or 709.8
committed on or with a child, or a person serving a sentence under section 902.12,
shall not be discharged from parole until the person’s term of parole equals the
period of imprisonment specified in the person’s sentence, less all time served in
confinement.” (emphasis added)).
7
fifteen years, i.e., the prison term imposed for Benford’s “underlying offense[s]” of
third-degree sexual abuse and enticing away a minor.
We disagree. We question whether, by its terms, the first sentence of
section 906.15(1) applies to the special sentence created by section 903B.1. The
first sentence of section 906.15(1) addresses parole from a specified period of
imprisonment, that is, a “period of imprisonment specified in [a] person’s
sentence.” But the special sentence is not a sentence of “imprisonment.” Tripp,
776 N.W.2d at 858 (“The imposition of lifetime parole is not tantamount to a
sentence of life imprisonment.”). Rather, it is a kind of parole. See id. (“The type
of punishment imposed is parole.”). Moreover, the “period” of the special sentence
is not “specified” in any usual sense such as a number of days or years. See Iowa
Code § 906.15(1). Rather, the special sentence continues “for the rest of the
[offender’s] life,” an unknowable term. See id. § 903B.1.
In any event, assuming the first sentence of section 906.15(1) applies in the
way Benford suggests, we find an irreconcilable conflict between the relevant
statutes. In Benford’s view, section 906.15(1) limits the special sentence to a
defined period that cannot be longer than the prison sentence (fifteen years)
Benford received for his underlying offenses. By its terms, though, section 903B.1
imposes a lifetime special sentence “in addition to” Benford’s punishment for his
underlying offenses.7 We cannot reconcile these views.
7 Indeed, section 903B.1 provides the special sentence “shall commence upon
completion of the sentence imposed under any applicable criminal sentencing
provisions for the underlying criminal offense.” (Emphasis added.)
8
But we find guidance in the “general/specific canon” of statutory
interpretation. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The
Interpretation of Legal Texts 183–88 (2012) (discussing the “general/specific
canon”). It directs that “[w]here a general statutory provision conflicts with a special
provision, and the conflict ‘is irreconcilable, the special . . . provision prevails as an
exception to the general provision.’” State v. Wade, 757 N.W.2d 618, 629 (Iowa
2008) (quoting Iowa Code § 4.7).
The canon is not difficult to apply here. Section 903B.1 is specific: it deals
only with the special lifetime sentence for certain sex offenders. Conversely, the
first sentence of section 906.15(1) is general. It applies to a wide range of offenses
and offenders. So we conclude section 903B.1 governs here. It extends Benford’s
special sentence to “the rest of [Benford’s] life,” subject to the possibility of
discharge “if the parole board determines that [Benford] is ‘able and willing to fulfill
the obligations of a law-abiding citizen without further supervision.’” Tripp, 776
N.W.2d at 858 (“It is also significant that the special sentence is not necessarily for
life. Section 903B.1 provides for the possibility of release from [special-sentence]
parole under chapter 906 if the parole board determines that the offender is ‘able
and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen without further
supervision.’” (quoting Iowa Code § 906.15)); see State v. Agee, Nos. 19-0345,
19-0131, 2019 WL 5791034, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2019) (rejecting
argument that “under Iowa Code sections 903B.1 and 906.15(1), the maximum
length of [an offender’s] special sentence was ten years—the length of his prison
sentence for his underlying sex offense—less credit for time served” and noting “if
[the offender] exhibits that he ‘is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-
9
abiding citizen without further supervision,’ the [Iowa Board of Parole] could decide
to discharge his special sentence altogether” (footnote and citation omitted)).
IV. Conclusion.
The IDOC was not required to provide Benford with a tentative discharge
date for his lifetime special sentence under Iowa Code section 903B.1. So the
district court was right to dismiss Benford’s petition for judicial review.
AFFIRMED.