State of Iowa v. Kory Michael Wallace
15-1448
| Iowa Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2016Background
- Kory Wallace pled guilty to assault with intent to commit sexual abuse in 2001, received a deferred judgment, probation, required sex-offender treatment, and ten-year registration (later made lifetime by statute).
- Wallace violated probation multiple times with marijuana/methamphetamine use, had his deferred judgment revoked, served a suspended prison term, and was ordered to complete certified sex-offender treatment and drug treatment.
- Probation records documented repeated treatment/supervision violations, new charges, and absconding; a counselor later wrote a discharge letter saying Wallace had largely addressed sexual-behavior issues if he remained sober.
- After discharge from probation, Wallace applied under Iowa Code § 692A.128 to modify (remove) his lifetime sex-offender registration; the State did not oppose initial proceedings but a department of corrections risk assessment was required.
- The DOC risk-assessment preparer concluded Wallace was not a low risk to reoffend (low-medium to moderate) and noted continuing instability and substance use; one judge found Wallace had not successfully completed required treatment and was not low risk.
- The district court denied modification; Wallace appealed, arguing the court’s findings lacked substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wallace "successfully completed all sex offender treatment programs" under § 692A.128(2)(b) | The State argued the probation reports and DOC materials show Wallace failed treatment and supervision. | Wallace argued he completed required treatment (probation discharge and counselor letter) and thus satisfied the prerequisite. | Court held substantial evidence supported that Wallace did not successfully complete all required treatment; prerequisite not met. |
| Whether the DOC risk assessment classified Wallace as a low risk under § 692A.128(2)(c) | The State relied on the DOC assessment and preparer’s testimony that Wallace was not low risk. | Wallace argued testing errors and other evidence could show a low-risk classification. | Court held the DOC report and testimony provided substantial evidence Wallace was not low risk; prerequisite not met. |
| Whether the district court properly weighed conflicting evidence (credibility of reports and expert testimony) | The State contended the court properly credited DOC and probation records over defense evidence. | Wallace argued the court should have credited his counselor and defense expert. | Court held credibility and weight were for the factfinder; district court did not err in crediting DOC/probation materials. |
| Whether denial of modification was an abuse of discretion after prerequisites failed | The State argued denial was within the court’s discretion. | Wallace argued the denial was unsupported and amounted to legal error. | Court held denial was not an abuse of discretion given dispositive failure to meet mandatory prerequisites. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Iowa Dist. Court ex rel. Story Cty., 843 N.W.2d 76 (Iowa 2014) (discussing district court authority to modify sex-offender registration under § 692A.128)
- State v. Shanahan, 712 N.W.2d 121 (Iowa 2006) (factfinder’s role in weighing evidence and assessing credibility of witnesses and experts)
- Mercy Hosp. v. Hansen, Lind & Meyer, P.C., 456 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa 1990) (factfinder chooses which expert testimony to credit)
- In re B.A., 737 N.W.2d 665 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007) (standard for abuse of discretion review)