State of Iowa v. David Winslow Dunham
15-1060
| Iowa Ct. App. | May 3, 2017Background
- Defendant David W. Dunham was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver (Iowa Code §124.401(1)(c)(6)) after amended charges showed under five grams.
- The trial information alleged Dunham was a second or subsequent offender and an habitual offender based on prior federal (1998) and Kansas (1988) felony convictions; Dunham admitted on the record to being the same person and acknowledged counsel in those prior cases.
- At sentencing the court applied the habitual-offender statute and the second-or-subsequent-offender enhancement, imposing an indeterminate 30-year term (within the 45-year statutory maximum).
- Dunham filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal sentence alleging procedural defects in the admission of prior convictions, failures under Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.19(9), and constitutional claims including cruel-and-unusual punishment and double jeopardy.
- The district court denied the motion; Dunham appealed. The appellate court treated the filing as seeking certiorari review of sentence legality and reviewed constitutional claims de novo and legal errors for correction of errors at law.
- The court held procedural defects in the sentencing colloquy (rule 2.19(9) concerns) are procedural and not reviewable in a motion to correct an illegal sentence where the record otherwise supports habitual-offender status; the sentence itself was within statutory and constitutional bounds and was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legality of sentence based on stipulations to prior convictions | State: Dunham admitted prior convictions and record supports habitual-offender status | Dunham: Admission procedure was defective; court failed to advise rights under rule 2.19(9); he was not given chance to admit/deny identity or obtain jury on identity | Held: Procedural defects do not render the sentence illegal; record shows admissions and statute applies, so not reviewable in motion to correct illegal sentence |
| Cruel and unusual punishment (Eighth Amendment and Iowa Const. art. I §17) | State: Sentence (30 yrs) is within statutory range and not grossly disproportionate | Dunham: 30-year enhanced sentence is cruel and unusual given facts | Held: Applying Iowa's gross-disproportionality test, no inference of gross disproportionality; sentence within statutory limits and upheld |
| Double jeopardy / stacking enhancements (habitual + second offender) | State: Statute permits enhancement under §902 and further enhancement under §124.411; stacking upheld in prior precedent | Dunham: Imposition of both enhancements is impermissible / illegal | Held: Court upheld stacking; sentence structure is statutorily and constitutionally permissible |
| Availability of relief via motion to correct illegal sentence for sentencing-procedure defects | State: Motion to correct illegal sentence is limited to legality, not procedural matters | Dunham: He may raise omissions in colloquy and preservation errors in this motion | Held: Procedural sentencing defects must be raised by other remedies; motion to correct illegal sentence is not the vehicle when the sentence itself is within statutory bounds |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sisk, 577 N.W.2d 414 (Iowa 1998) (upholding combined habitual-offender and second-offender enhancements)
- State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (limits on using motion to correct illegal sentence to relitigate trial errors)
- State v. Gordon, 732 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 2007) (sentence illegal where habitual status was improperly established using same-day convictions)
- State v. Wilson, 294 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1980) (procedural defects in sentencing colloquy do not necessarily make sentence illegal)
- State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2012) (Iowa's gross-disproportionality test for cruel-and-unusual punishments)
- State v. Musser, 721 N.W.2d 734 (Iowa 2006) (deference to legislative sentencing ranges; gross disproportionality is rare)
- State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234 (Iowa 1998) (illegal sentence review limited to stepping outside statutory boundaries)
- State v. Cronkhite, 613 N.W.2d 664 (Iowa 2000) (definition and limits of cruel and unusual punishment)
- Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1962) (purpose of allowing correction of illegal sentences is to fix sentences exceeding statutory authority, not to relitigate earlier trial errors)