State of Iowa v. Hubert Todd, Jr.
19-2001
| Iowa Ct. App. | Jul 21, 2021Background
- Hubert Todd was convicted of third-degree sexual abuse in 1998, sentenced to up to ten years, and ordered to register as a sex offender; the sentencing order and DOC release documents did not require participation in a sex-offender treatment program (SOTP).
- Todd was discharged and released in October 2002; he filed an application to modify his sex-offender registry requirements in November 2018 under Iowa Code § 692A.128.
- The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) submitted a risk assessment in 2019 which reflected prior recommendations that Todd participate in SOTP but did not clearly mark that he had been required to complete SOTP; DCS later suggested an evaluation and Todd was assessed as not needing SOTP.
- The district court found a SOTP had been required but not completed and denied modification; Todd appealed. The appellate court treated the notice of appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and granted the writ.
- The appellate majority held the statutory term "required" is unambiguous and a recommendation or suggestion to participate in SOTP does not satisfy § 692A.128(2)(b); because no SOTP was "required," Todd met that criterion and the case was remanded for the district court to exercise its discretionary authority under § 692A.128(5)–(6). Judge May dissented, arguing that Schreck’s testimony that Todd was ordered to complete SOTP constituted substantial evidence supporting the district court.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Todd's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle / jurisdiction | Denial of modification is like a motion to correct sentence; review only by discretionary review or certiorari | Appealed as matter of right (final judgment of sentence) | Appellate court treated the appeal as a petition for certiorari and granted the writ |
| Whether Todd had "completed all SOTP[s] that have been required" (Iowa Code § 692A.128(2)(b)) | DOC records and witness testimony show Todd was required to complete SOTP and repeatedly refused; substantial evidence supports denial | Sentencing order and DOC release did not require SOTP; recommendations/suggestions do not equal a legal "requirement" | "Required" is unambiguous; recommendation/suggestion ≠ requirement; no substantial evidence that any SOTP was legally required, so the criterion is satisfied |
| Authority of DOC/parole to require post-discharge SOTP | DOC treated prior recommendations as requirements; court below accepted that posture | Any authority to require SOTP expired with Todd’s discharge; section 903B.1 (creating post-release special sentence requirements) does not apply retroactively to Todd | Court concluded no legal authority existed to require Todd to complete SOTP after discharge, so no requirement existed under § 692A.128(2)(b) |
| Remedy / next steps | If requirement found, deny modification; alternatively, district court should exercise discretion to deny | If criterion satisfied, district court must consider discretionary factors and may grant modification | Court remanded for district court to exercise discretion under § 692A.128(5)–(6) after finding statutory prerequisites met |
Key Cases Cited
- Propps v. State, 897 N.W.2d 91 (Iowa 2017) (court may treat an appeal as another form of review, e.g., certiorari)
- Becher v. State, 957 N.W.2d 710 (Iowa 2021) (standards for modification under Iowa Code § 692A.128 and review for errors at law)
- Fortune v. State, 957 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2021) (discretionary nature of district court’s decision to grant modification after prerequisites met)
- Kay-Decker v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Review, 857 N.W.2d 216 (Iowa 2014) (statutory interpretation: if language is unambiguous, court enforces plain meaning)
- Bribriesco-Ledger v. Klipsch, 957 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 2021) (appellate courts must police jurisdiction and may convert improper filings to proper review mechanisms)