State of Iowa v. Ronnie Earl Harrington ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 12-1153
Filed March 12, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RONNIE EARL HARRINGTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Rustin T.
Davenport, Judge.
Ronnie Harrington appeals from a district court’s order denying a motion
to correct an illegal sentence. AFFIRMED.
Ronnie Harrington, Fort Dodge, pro se.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean Pettinger, Assistant Attorney
General, Carlyle D. Dalen, County Attorney, and Sandra Murphy, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., Mullins, J., and Huitink, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
2
HUITINK, S.J.
Ronnie Harrington was sentenced to one year of incarceration following
his guilty plea to indecent exposure in violation of Iowa Code section 709.9
(2001). Although he had a prior sexually predatory offense, the State agreed to
exclude reference to that offense, which subjected him to sentence enhancement
under sections 901A.1 and 901A.2. In 2010, Harrington challenged the sentence
in a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing it was illegal because the first
predatory sexual offense conviction and sentencing enhancement were to be
stricken. This court affirmed the denial of his motion, finding both “were indeed
stricken.” State v. Harrington, No. 10-1299, 2012 WL 474162, at *1 (Iowa Ct.
App. Feb. 15, 2012).
Harrington again challenged this sentence in 2012. And again, the district
court denied his motion to correct an illegal sentence. In contravention of his
prior challenge, Harrington now argues his sentence is illegal because he did not
receive an enhanced sentence due to his prior conviction. We review his
challenge for correction of errors at law. See Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357,
359 (Iowa 2001).
We conclude the district court properly denied Harrington’s motion.
Before Harrington pled guilty, the court granted the State’s request to amend the
trial information to strike the allegation of a prior sexually predatory offense.
Because the State did not prove any sexually predatory offense beyond a
reasonable doubt, the sentencing enhancements found in sections 901A.1 and
901A.2 could not be applied. An illegal sentence is one that is not authorized by
statute. State v. Wade, 757 N.W.2d 618, 628 (Iowa 2008). Harrington’s
3
sentence was authorized by statute; to apply the sentencing enhancement where
the State did not allege and Harrington did not plead guilty to the prior offense
would have been illegal. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.