State of Iowa v. Denem Anthony Null
2013 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 94
| Iowa | 2013Background
- Null, then sixteen years ten months old, was charged with second-degree murder and first-degree robbery in Iowa.
- Plea: Null pled guilty to the two offenses in exchange for dismissal of first-degree murder; parties anticipated potential parole eligibility differences depending on whether sentences run concurrently or consecutively.
- The district court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 75 years, with a 52.5-year mandatory minimum before parole, effectively restricting parole for most of his life.
- Null challenged the sentence as cruel and unusual under the Eighth Amendment and Iowa Constitution, and argued trial counsel was ineffective during plea colloquy and on juvenile-transfer issues.
- The court found No discretion to alter the base sentences but did have discretion on concurrency; it chose consecutive sentences after considering Null’s juvenile history and interventions.
- This direct appeal affirmed the convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing consistent with Miller and related principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Miller apply to a lengthy term-of-years sentence | Null contends Miller applies to his aggregate 52.5-year term as a de facto LWOP | State argues Miller does not apply to non-LWOP term-of-years sentences | Miller applies and requires remand for Miller-based resentencing |
| Whether Miller requires an individualized resentencing on remand | Null requests Miller factors be considered on remand | State argues Miller considerations not required for aggregate term unless required by Miller | District court must apply Miller on remand with an individualized review |
| Consecutive vs. concurrent sentences post-Miller | Null argues concurrent sentences would be appropriate due to youth | State contends district court had broad discretion and could impose consecutive sentences | Remand to reconsider sequencing under Miller; not resolved on direct appeal |
| Adequacy of plea colloquy regarding malice, elements, and penalties | Null argues inadequate explanation of malice aforethought and penalty consequences | State argues sufficient explanation and understanding of penalties | Plea colloquy adequately conveyed essential elements and potential penalties |
| Withdrawal of transfer to juvenile court | Null claims ineffective assistance for withdrawing transfer request | State argues issue lacked prejudice and should be reserved for post-conviction review | Not addressed on direct appeal due to lack of demonstrated prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012) (juvenile life-sentence framework applicable beyond homicide contexts; requires individualized review)
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (juvenile life without parole for nonhomicide offenses prohibited; requires meaningful opportunity for release)
- Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (juveniles are constitutionally different; death penalty not appropriate for those under eighteen)
- Bruegger v. State, 773 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009) (applies Roper concepts to state cruel-and-unusual punishment under Iowa Constitution)
- Jones v. Iowa (state reference from opinion), State v. Ragland, 836 N.W.2d 107 (Iowa 2013) (Miller factors for post-Miller remand guidance (footnote reference in opinion))