State of Iowa v. Anthony Stivers, 16-0493

In 2006 Anthony Stivers pled guilty to two counts of lascivious acts with a child (Iowa Code § 709.8(1)) and was sentenced in 2007 to two prison terms not to exceed five years, ordered to run consecutively.
Each conviction also carried a mandatory ten-year special sentence under Iowa Code § 903B.2 (supervision by Iowa DOC).
The sentencing order recited the ten-year special sentence for each conviction but did not expressly state whether the special sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently.
Iowa DOC treated the special sentences as consecutive because the underlying prison terms were consecutive; Stivers challenged this in a 2016 motion to correct an illegal sentence.
The district court granted Stivers’s motion, concluding the court lacked authority to order consecutive special sentences under § 903B.2 and/or the sentencing order did not explicitly order them consecutive; the State appealed.
The Court of Appeals declined to decide the broader question whether courts have authority to impose consecutive special sentences and instead affirmed on the narrower ground that the sentencing order did not expressly order consecutive special sentences, so they are concurrent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stivers)	Held
Whether a court may order multiple § 903B.2 special sentences to run consecutively	Courts have authority to impose consecutive special sentences; DOC properly treated them as consecutive	Sentencing court lacked authority to order consecutive special sentences under § 903B.2 (or, at minimum, the order did not expressly do so)	Court declined to decide authority question; held the sentencing order did not explicitly impose consecutive special sentences, so they are concurrent
Mootness of the appeal (Stivers discharged)	Issue may be moot but should be decided because it is public concern and likely to recur	Decision affects Stivers’s supervision status; not moot if reversal would reinstate supervision	Not moot: reversal would have practical effect of returning Stivers to supervision, so court reached merits

State v. Jones, 299 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 1980) (concurrent construction of multiple sentences absent explicit consecutive order)
Cleesen v. Brewer, 201 N.W.2d 474 (Iowa 1972) (same principle regarding concurrency of sentences)
State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 2000) (sentencing court must explain reasons for imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (standard of review for motions to correct illegal sentence)
Wengert v. Branstad, 474 N.W.2d 576 (Iowa 1991) (mootness test: decision must have practical legal effect on controversy)
Rhiner v. State, 703 N.W.2d 174 (Iowa 2005) (court generally will not decide moot cases)
Iowa Mutual Insurance Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 537 (Iowa 1997) (mootness assesses whether opinion would affect underlying controversy)