State of Iowa v. Dean Michael Pennell ( 2016 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0593
Filed February 24, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DEAN MICHAEL PENNELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Douglas S.
Russell (guilty plea) and Ian K. Thornhill (sentencing), Judges.
Dean Pennell appeals the mandatory sentence imposed on his second-
degree sexual-abuse conviction. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Vidhya K. Reddy, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
MAHAN, Senior Judge.
Dean Pennell challenges the mandatory sentence imposed1 after he pled
guilty to second-degree sexual abuse, a class “B” felony. Pennell argues the
mandatory minimum sentence violates the separation of powers provision of the
Iowa Constitution by precluding the court from exercising its sentencing
discretion. We review a constitutional challenge to an allegedly illegal sentence
de novo. State v. Ragland, 836 N.W.2d 107, 113 (Iowa 2013).
At the sentencing hearing, Pennell’s trial counsel noted the lack of
discretion the trial court had due to the mandatory sentence. He then stated, “I
will just take this opportunity to assert that the mandatory minimum sentences
are unconstitutional,” but noted he lacked “any support from caselaw on that.”
The sentencing court rejected his argument outright, stating, “I will not be
declaring mandatory minimums unconstitutional here today.”
The sentencing court certainly had good cause for declining Pennell’s
invitation to find mandatory minimum sentences unconstitutional, as do we. As
Pennell acknowledges, the Iowa Supreme Court has already rejected this
argument a number of times. See State v. Phillips, 610 N.W.2d 840, 842 (Iowa
2000) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that the parole and work-release
restrictions of section 902.12 infringe on the separation of powers between
branches of government); Wharton v. Iowa Bd. of Parole, 463 N.W.2d 416, 417
(Iowa 1990) (rejecting a claim that the mandatory minimum sentences set forth in
1
Pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.9(1)(b) (2011), the trial court sentenced Pennell to
an indeterminate term of no more than twenty-five years in prison. He is not eligible for
parole until he has served at least seven-tenths of the maximum term of his sentence.
See Iowa Code § 903.12(3).
3
section 902.11 unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers); State v.
Holmes, 276 N.W.2d 823, 830 (Iowa 1979) (rejecting a separation of powers
challenge to mandatory minimum sentences for use of a firearm). Although
Pennell invites us to reconsider and overrule these rulings, “[w]e are not at liberty
to overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.” State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697,
700 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990).
In light of the published holdings of our supreme court, we affirm Pennell’s
sentence pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(c).
AFFIRMED.