State of Iowa v. Joseph James Jean, 16-1203

Defendant Joseph Jean (52) pleaded guilty to incest (class D felony) after admitting to a sex act with his adult daughter who has an intellectual disability; a companion sexual-abuse charge was dismissed under a plea agreement.
Victim impact statement described ongoing emotional harm and loss of trust; witnesses would have testified the victim had the mental capacity of a 13–14 year old.
PSI recommended a suspended prison sentence with community supervision and a condition barring contact with minors until approved by the sex-offender treatment program; assessments rated Jean low risk to reoffend.
At sentencing the State sought a five-year prison term plus sex-offender treatment; defense stressed no prior record, employment history, and willingness to avoid minors pending program approval.
The district court imposed up to five years’ imprisonment and a ten-year special sentence, denied probation as depreciating the offense seriousness and cited Jean’s homelessness/unemployment as impediments to outpatient treatment; court ordered protection prohibiting contact with the daughter and the written order barred contact with anyone under 18.
Jean appealed, challenging the prison sentence and the broad prohibition on contact with minors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by imposing prison instead of probation	State: prison appropriate to protect community and ensure treatment; defendant’s instability would impede outpatient treatment	Jean: crime in private bedroom doesn’t implicate public danger; unemployment/homelessness doesn’t preclude probation-based treatment; low risk to reoffend	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; court properly weighed factors and PSI information
Whether the sentencing order’s prohibition on contact with persons under 18 is reasonable	State: agrees the written language is overly broad and creates a de facto lifetime ban; asks for remand to modify or remove	Jean: ban is unrelated to offense and unreasonably broad, barring attendance at common public places where minors are present	Vacated in part — remanded to strike the blanket prohibition on contact with persons under 18

Formaro v. State, 638 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2002) (sentencing review standard and presumption of correctness for within-guidelines sentences)
Valin v. State, 724 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 2006) (abuse of discretion where special probation conditions lack reasonable relation to offense)
Lathrop v. State, 781 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2010) (overbroad no-contact-with-minors conditions may require resentencing)
Fatland v. State, 882 N.W.2d 123 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (probation condition banning contact with children under five found unduly restrictive)
Hall v. State, 740 N.W.2d 200 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (blanket prohibition on communication with anyone under 18 without exceptions is unreasonably restrictive)