State of Iowa v. Nathan Daniel Olsen
848 N.W.2d 363
Iowa2014Background
- Olsen pleaded nolo contendere in Wisconsin to a felony (second-degree sexual assault of a child) and two misdemeanors; the Wisconsin court deferred entry of an adjudication/judgment on the felony under a Deferred Judgment of Conviction (DJOC) with conditions for four years.
- At the plea hearing the Wisconsin judge and prosecutor indicated on the record that Olsen was "not convicted of a felony" for firearms purposes and that he could hunt; the written DJOC and order, however, found an adequate factual basis for the plea and stayed acceptance/adjudication for four years.
- The DJOC imposed conditions (probation for misdemeanors, sex-offender evaluation, restitution, etc.) and provided that failure to comply or new charges would lead to entry of judgment and adjudication of guilt on the felony.
- After probation on the misdemeanors expired but while the DJOC remained in effect, Iowa charged Olsen under Iowa Code § 724.26 (felon-in-possession) based on the Wisconsin plea.
- Olsen moved to dismiss, arguing the Wisconsin deferred/no-contest plea did not produce a "conviction" under Iowa law; the district court denied the motion and this interlocutory appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Olsen) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olsen was "convicted" of a felony in Wisconsin for purposes of Iowa Code § 724.26 | A no-contest plea with acceptance/stay of adjudication does not establish a conviction under Deng Kon Tong; Iowa law treats guilty and nolo pleas differently | Wisconsin court found a factual basis, accepted the plea on the record (found guilt), and the DJOC shows conviction-level consequences; nolo contendere is functionally equivalent to guilty for conviction purposes | The court affirmed: the Wisconsin proceeding produced a conviction for § 724.26 because the court found a factual basis and determined guilt and the DJOC remained in effect (deferred judgment not yet completed) |
| Whether the nature of the plea (nolo contendere vs. guilty) changes the conviction analysis | Nolo pleas have different evidentiary consequences and, here, the plea acceptance was stayed, so no conviction | The plea’s label is immaterial; the court must focus on the court’s determination of guilt and functional equivalence | Held: plea label irrelevant; court’s finding of guilt under the deferred judgment suffices as a conviction |
| Whether out-of-state law controls the meaning of "convicted" | Iowa should respect Wisconsin’s characterization of the proceeding (comity); Wisconsin judge/prosecutor said no felony conviction resulted | Iowa’s § 724.26 requires a functional, Iowa-centered assessment (Deng Kon Tong); uniform application favors using Iowa’s standards | Held: Iowa law governs; evaluate whether out-of-state proceeding is functionally equivalent to an Iowa conviction — here it was |
| Whether equitable or factual circumstances (judge’s on-the-record statements that Olsen could hunt) negate conviction | Such statements and the factual context create unfair consequences and show no intent to strip rights | Statements do not alter the legal effect of the Wisconsin court’s finding of guilt and the DJOC; § 724.26 does not require defendant’s knowledge of disability | Held: equities and mistaken assurances do not change the legal determination of conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Deng Kon Tong, 805 N.W.2d 599 (Iowa 2011) (deferred judgment prior to completion of probation constitutes a conviction for § 724.26)
- State v. Sanborn, 564 N.W.2d 813 (Iowa 1997) (Iowa defines whether out-of-state predicate is a felony by Iowa’s statutory definition)
- Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., Inc., 460 U.S. 103 (U.S. 1983) (federal law once defined "convicted" uniformly for gun statute before Congress changed the standard)
- Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1994) (discussing change in federal statute directing courts to look to jurisdictional law for conviction definition)
- State v. Wimmer, 449 N.W.2d 621 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989) (acceptance of a plea/ verdict makes a conviction sufficiently final for some statutory purposes)
- State v. Black, 624 N.W.2d 363 (Wis. 2001) (no contest plea treated as equivalent to guilty plea for purposes of supporting a judgment of conviction)