Dennis Becher v. State of Iowa, 957 N.W.2d 710

Background

Dennis Becher pled guilty in 2000 to two counts of third-degree sexual abuse of his nine-year-old adopted daughter; he served ~9 years and was released in 2009.
Because the convictions were aggravated offenses, Becher is subject to lifetime sex-offender registration and remained compliant with registration for ~10 years without violations.
On October 29, 2019, Becher sought modification of his registration requirements under Iowa Code § 692A.128, presenting DCS risk assessments (validated tools), testimony that he completed treatment, and character/support testimony.
DCS used five validated instruments: results showed low/very-low risk overall; STATIC-99R alone placed him at "below average" (Level II) but DCS noted STATIC-99R should be adjusted to very low risk after ten years offense-free.
The district court denied modification, citing the STATIC-99R Level II score, absence of a DCS stipulation, and that Becher had adjusted well to registration (finding no persuasive reason to modify).
The Iowa Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding the district court misapplied Iowa Code § 692A.128 and abused its discretion by miscontextualizing the STATIC-99R, improperly considering the lack of a DCS stipulation for an unsupervised offender, and penalizing successful compliance.

Issues

Issue	Becher's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Proper standard for adult modification under § 692A.128	District court must focus on risk of reoffending; apply In re A.J.M. risk-focused approach	Legislature allows district court discretion and may consider factors beyond risk and juvenile precedent is distinguishable	Court: Focus must be on risk and public-safety need for registration; for adults statute requires classification as low risk by validated tools (different from juvenile waiver standard)
Treatment of STATIC-99R and DCS evaluation	Court erred by emphasizing STATIC-99R Level II without accounting for DCS adjustment reflecting 10 years offense-free (very low risk)	STATIC-99R score is fixed and technically below-average, so district court's note was factually accurate	Court: District court abused discretion by failing to place STATIC-99R in context of DCS evaluation and time offense-free; DCS evaluation is weighty evidence that must be properly considered
Relevance of DCS stipulation when offender is not supervised	Absence of a DCS stipulation is irrelevant when offender was never under supervision; § 692A.128(6) stipulation applies to supervised offenders	Stipulation not required but its absence may legitimately inform the court	Court: Failure to obtain DCS stipulation cannot be a reason to deny modification for an unsupervised offender; district court erred in treating it as a factor
Weight given to successful compliance and nature of the offense	Successful compliance and long offense-free period are positive factors and should not be penalized; legislature required time offense-free as a factor	Court may consider underlying crime and lack of persuasive reason beyond risk assessment	Court: Penalizing Becher for successful adjustment was improper; underlying crime may be considered only insofar as it bears on public-safety purposes, not punishment

Key Cases Cited

State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 843 N.W.2d 76 (Iowa 2014) (standards for reviewing statutory interpretation and modification decisions)
Schaefer v. Putnam, 841 N.W.2d 68 (Iowa 2013) (principles for correcting errors of law in sentencing/registration contexts)
In re A.J.M., 847 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 2014) (juvenile waiver focuses on likelihood of reoffending)
In re Foster, 426 N.W.2d 374 (Iowa 1988) (defines juvenile waiver standard as "probable or reasonably to be expected")
State v. Adams, 554 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1996) (the word "may" confers discretion)
In re Tr. #T–1 of Trimble, 826 N.W.2d 474 (Iowa 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
In re Marriage of Kimbro, 826 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2013) (describing when a discretionary ruling is unreasonable)
In re Marriage of Schenkelberg, 824 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 2012) (related standards for reviewing discretion)