State of Iowa v. Joshua Scott Pearson
2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 27
| Iowa | 2016Background
- Joshua Pearson (age 31) pleaded guilty to two counts of third‑degree sexual abuse involving a 15‑year‑old; plea factual basis supported the lesser offense under Iowa Code § 709.4(2)(c)(4).
- The written judgment incorrectly cited Iowa Code § 709.4(2)(6) (a different, forcible offense) though the transcript and plea colloquy showed the correct factual basis.
- On appeal the court of appeals concluded the error was a mistake of law (not correctable by nunc pro tunc), vacated the judgment as to the wrong code section, and remanded to allow the district court to amend the judgment to reflect the plea.
- On remand a different district judge conducted a full resentencing and imposed consecutive ten‑year terms (harsher than the original concurrent sentences) and added an in‑custody SOTP requirement.
- Pearson appealed again arguing the district court exceeded the appellate mandate by resentencing rather than simply amending the judgment; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
- The Supreme Court held the district court exceeded its mandate by conducting a new sentencing and vacated the district court and court of appeals decisions, ordering the original judgment be amended to reflect the correct statutory citation without resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pearson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court on remand could conduct a new sentencing or was limited to correcting the judgment | The State argued the error was clerical and the remand permitted correction (nunc pro tunc) and that resentencing was permissible under the court of appeals’ vacatur | Pearson argued the remand authorized only amendment of the judgment to the correct code section and not resentencing; resentencing unlawfully exposed him to a harsher sentence | Court held the district court exceeded the appellate mandate; remand required amendment of the judgment to the correct code section without resentencing |
| Whether appellant preserved the challenge to resentencing | State argued Pearson waived the claim by failing to object at remand and participating in the hearing | Pearson asserted he objected personally during allocution and thus preserved the issue | Court found preservation adequate under these unique facts (defendant personally objected) |
| Whether Garrett precedent required resentencing after vacatur | State and court of appeals relied on Garrett to justify vacatur and resentencing | Pearson argued Garrett is distinguishable because Garrett involved an erroneous verdict form and a different crime; here guilt on the charged crime was not disturbed | Court distinguished Garrett and concluded resentencing was unnecessary because guilt was properly entered for the correct offense; only the statutory citation needed correction |
| Remedy: amend judgment vs. vacate and resentence | State and court of appeals favored vacatur/remand resulting in resentencing | Pearson sought amendment to reflect correct statutory citation without new sentencing exposure | Court ordered amendment of original judgment to correct the code citation and vacated the district court and court of appeals decisions that permitted resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Okoboji v. Iowa District Court, 744 N.W.2d 327 (Iowa 2008) (mandate on remand controls district court; court must follow appellate intent)
- State v. Garrett, 516 N.W.2d 892 (Iowa 1994) (where verdict form error required amendment and resentencing on amended verdict)
- Kuhlmann v. Persinger, 154 N.W.2d 860 (Iowa 1967) (remand limits: district court may only do the special thing authorized by appellate opinion)
- State v. Lathrop, 781 N.W.2d 288 (Iowa 2010) (illegal‑sentence challenges may be raised on direct appeal)