State of Iowa v. Matthew Earl Cox, 16-0102

Background

In 2006 Cox was charged and in 2008 convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual abuse for conduct committed when he was 15; he was resentenced in 2009 to an indeterminate 25-year term with a 70% mandatory minimum and a lifetime sex-offender registration requirement under Iowa Code chapter 692A.
In 2015 Cox moved to correct an illegal sentence, asking among other relief to be excused from lifetime sex-offender registration because the offense was juvenile-era conduct.
The district court granted relief as to mandatory parole/minimums but denied relief from the lifetime registration requirement; Cox appealed that denial.
Cox argued lifetime registration (1) is punitive and cruel-and-unusual when applied to juvenile conduct, (2) is an ex post facto application, and (3) violates due process because it lacks an individualized risk determination.
The court below relied on recent Iowa Supreme Court precedent holding 692A nonpunitive and constitutional as applied to juveniles, and noted statutory § 692A.128 permits post-release applications to modify or lift registration requirements after a statutory waiting period.
The appellate court affirmed: continued registration was not an illegal sentence because 692A is nonpunitive, not ex post facto, and provides adequate procedural safeguards (including § 692A.128) to satisfy due process.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether lifetime sex-offender registration for juvenile conduct is punitive/cruel and unusual	State: 692A is regulatory, not punitive	Cox: Lifetime registration for juvenile conduct is punitive and violates cruel-and-unusual protections	Denied — court follows Iowa Supreme Court precedent that 692A is nonpunitive and not cruel-and-unusual when applied to juveniles (Graham, Pickens, Seering)
Whether applying 692A to Cox is an ex post facto punishment	State: 692A is remedial/regulatory, not punitive, so no ex post facto problem	Cox: Imposing lifetime registration for conduct committed before the statute’s enactment is ex post facto punishment	Denied — statute held nonpunitive in Pickens and reaffirmed in Graham, so not an ex post facto punishment
Whether lifetime registration without an individualized risk finding violates due process	State: Conviction process and § 692A.128’s post-release modification process provide sufficient process	Cox: Due process requires individualized risk determination before imposing lifetime registration on a juvenile offender	Denied — court finds no liberty interest if statute is nonpunitive; even assuming one, procedural protections (conviction safeguards and § 692A.128) are adequate and practical timing for individualized assessment is post-release
Whether timing and mechanics of § 692A.128 render post-release review illusory (ripeness and veto by DOC)	State: § 692A.128 allows judicial modification after statutory waiting period; DOC cannot arbitrarily veto stipulation	Cox: Relief is premature while incarcerated; the statute’s requirement of DOC stipulation can block relief	Denied/not ripe — court finds claim premature now and that statutory review is real and reviewable; DOC cannot arbitrarily withhold stipulation without judicial oversight

Key Cases Cited

State v. Graham, 897 N.W.2d 476 (Iowa 2017) (Iowa Supreme Court: lifetime parole and lifetime registration challenges as applied to juveniles addressed; registration held nonpunitive)
State v. Pickens, 558 N.W.2d 398 (Iowa 1997) (Iowa Supreme Court: Iowa’s sex-offender registration statute is remedial, not punitive)
State v. Seering, 701 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 2005) (Iowa Supreme Court: upheld constitutionality of registration regime against due process and Eighth Amendment challenges)
Conn. Dep’t of Pub. Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003) (U.S. Supreme Court: procedural due process challenge to sex-offender registry premised on conviction rejected)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (U.S. Supreme Court: categorical limits on harsh mandatory juvenile sentences; cited for the proposition that some mandatory juvenile sentencing schemes require individualized consideration)