State of Iowa v. David Hal Calvin
839 N.W.2d 181
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Calvin pled guilty to second-degree theft as a habitual offender and to second-degree harassment; he entered Polk County drug court as part of a plea agreement proposing a suspended sentence upon successful completion.
- Calvin signed drug court release, contract, and plea agreement documents outlining possible sanctions, including jail time for violations; the plea promised a prison sentence if he failed the program.
- The district court ordered Calvin to residential treatment at the Iowa Residential Treatment Center (IRTC) and transported him there; leaving the center could be prosecuted as an escape.
- Calvin completed treatment at the IRTC but subsequent drug court violations led to jail time and transfer to Harbor of Hope halfway house, followed by further confinement for contempt and additional violations.
- On March 16, 2012, the district court removed him from the drug court and sentenced him to 15 years in prison with a three-year minimum; credit for pre-sentence confinement was denied.
- The Court of Appeals held Calvin entitled to credit for time at the IRTC but only for non-contempt jail time; the Iowa Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether jail time for drug court violations and IRTC time qualify for credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jail time for drug court violations counts as creditable time under 903A.5(1). | Calvin: time jailed for noncontempt drug court violations should count. | State: such jail time is not 'on account of the offense' and not creditable. | Credit for noncontempt jail time is allowed; time at IRTC also creditable. |
| Whether time spent at the IRTC qualifies for credit under 903A.5(1). | Calvin: IRTC is a mental facility; time there should be creditable. | State: argues limitation or misinterpretation of 903A.5(1) regarding facilities. | Yes; time at the IRTC is creditable as mental-health confinement under 903A.5(1). |
| What is the proper remedy when credit is missing from a district court sentence. | Calvin: district court must be remanded to grant proper credit. | State: remand is appropriate to modify the sentencing order to grant credit. | Remand to modify sentencing order to grant appropriate credit. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mott, 731 N.W.2d 392 (Iowa 2007) (contempt time treated separately from criminal sentences; 901.8 not controlling)
- State v. Capper, 539 N.W.2d 361 (Iowa 1995) (credit for time in mental-health evaluation under 903A.5(1))
- Hawk v. State, 616 N.W.2d 527 (Iowa 2000) (correction of errors in sentencing statutes; credit framework)
- State v. Harrison, 468 N.W.2d 215 (Iowa 1991) (credit for time served prior to charging, bail irrelevant)