State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Jasper County ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0984
Filed May 10, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR JASPER COUNTY,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________
Certiorari to the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Brad McCall, Judge.
The State petitioned for certiorari, challenging a district court order that
found the Iowa Department of Corrections improperly removed an inmate from the
sexual offender treatment program. WRIT SUSTAINED.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Andrew Dufflemeyer, Assistant
Attorney General, for plaintiff.
Augustus Stoy, Newton, self-represented defendant.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.
The State petitioned for certiorari, challenging a district court order that
overturned an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) determination that the Iowa
Department of Corrections (DOC) was justified when it removed Augustus Stoy
from the sexual offender treatment program (SOTP). The State claims the district
court improperly supplanted the ALJ’s decision. We find the district court erred by
overturning the ALJ determination. Accordingly, we sustain the writ of certiorari.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
Stoy was convicted in 2010 of various offenses including second-degree
burglary and sexual abuse in the third degree. He was sentenced to twenty-nine
years in prison. As a part of his sentence, Stoy was required to complete SOTP.
Failure to complete SOTP would prevent Stoy from accruing credit to reduce his
sentence. See Iowa Code § 903A.2(a)(2) (2010).
Stoy began the program in September 2020. Before beginning SOTP, he
had to sign a contract that, as relevant here, required the following:
1. Honesty/responsibility—I must be completely honest. I
must take full responsibility for my actions. That includes all my
current and past crimes and behaviors.
....
4. Expectations—I must follow the following treatment rules:
....
(d) Disclosures—I will complete all disclosure
documents on time. . . . If I am not honest or do not
take full responsibility for my actions in my disclosures,
then staff may remove me from SOTP.
The treatment director, Craig Andrew, removed Stoy from the program on
May 10, 2021, based on his determination that Stoy violated the treatment contract
by minimizing his actions and behaving dishonestly. In detailing his rationale,
3
Andrew highlighted the incongruity between Stoy’s assertions that he did not
remember most of the relevant details of his offense due to his intoxication while
also affirmatively denying details obtained from the victim.
An ALJ conducted a hearing on September 7 to review Stoy’s removal from
SOTP. The ALJ largely agreed with Andrew’s assessment. As a result, the ALJ
affirmed Stoy’s removal from the program. Stoy then filed an application for
postconviction relief (PCR), challenging the ALJ’s determination. The district court
reversed the ALJ. The court pointed to an event log that tracked Stoy’s actions in
the program, which generally credited Stoy for his engagement with SOTP. The
district court also opined, “While the prison officials might not like it that [Stoy] has
no present recollection of details related to his crime, there is no factual basis in
the record from which [Stoy’s] lack of recollection may be disputed.”
The State petitioned for writ of certiorari. Stoy filed a resistance and also
asked for a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction. Our supreme
court granted the writ and denied Stoy’s request for a restraining order.1
II. Standard of Review
We review this certiorari proceeding for correction of errors at law, asking
whether the district court acted illegally. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., ___ N.W.2d ___,
___, 2023 WL 3028128, at *2 (Iowa 2023). “Illegality exists when the court’s
findings lack substantial evidentiary support, or when the court has not properly
applied the law.” Id. (citation omitted).
1 Stoy filed a pro se appellee brief in this case. Stoy did not cross-file for certiorari
or otherwise cross-appeal, so we are limited to the issues raised in the State’s
petition for certiorari and brief, or arguably, an alternative ground to annul the writ
if preserved below.
4
III. Discussion
The State contends the district court improperly supplanted the ALJ’s
findings. “An ALJ’s decision in a disciplinary proceeding affecting earned-time
credits will be affirmed so long as there is ‘some evidence’ in the record to support
it.” State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 888 N.W.2d 655, 668 (Iowa 2016). The “some evidence”
standard is a low bar to clear. Id. Indeed, the issue “is whether there exists any
evidence at all, that is, whether there is any basis in fact to support the action taken
by the prison official.” Mahers v. State, 437 N.W.2d 565, 570 (Iowa 1989) (citation
omitted).
We determine the district court utilized the wrong standard when it
overturned the ALJ’s decision. It is true, as the district court noted, that
contemporaneous notes from SOTP indicate Stoy adequately participated in class.
But our standard of review does not task us with independently reviewing the
evidence.2 Instead, we must examine the record to determine whether there is
“any evidence at all” to support the ALJ’s decision. Id.Positive comments about class participation notwithstanding, the record
contains evidence that Stoy was acting dishonestly. Incongruity exists between
Stoy’s assertions that he was so intoxicated as to not remember most of the events
underpinning his convictions while also affirmatively denying the victim’s
description of events. Andrew’s generic note detailed that “Stoy has maintained
that he doesn’t remember much of the lead up, assault, or post-assault details,”
2The court also noted that the ALJ acted without the benefit of having reviewed a
computer voice stress analysis (CVSA). But again, that analysis falls outside the
proper standard of review.
5
including that Stoy asserted he was “not cognizant his entire walk to the apartment
through the sexual assault.” But at the same time, “Stoy maintained that he did
not wait in the apartment for his victim to return after she left. He denies that he
forced her into the bedroom. He denies that he manipulated her body to better
accommodate his sexual assault.” He also denied “hitting, choking, or holding [the
victim] down,” as the victim attested in her victim impact statement.
Simply put, Stoy’s assertions cannot simultaneously be true: He either does
not remember the events, or he does remember them sufficiently to contest the
victim’s statements.3 Either way, Stoy was being dishonest or, at least, did not
fully disclose the details of the offense. Because of the incompatibility of Stoy’s
statements, there was “some evidence” for the ALJ to determine Stoy had violated
the SOTP contract by behaving dishonestly or not fully taking responsibility for his
actions. The district court erred in reversing the ALJ determination. Accordingly,
we sustain the writ of certiorari.
WRIT SUSTAINED.
3 We note that this is true regardless of whether the victim’s statements are
themselves reliable. See Iowa Dist. Ct., 888 N.W.2d at 669 (finding a victim’s
statement to police could be used in SOTP classification proceedings because
they were sufficiently reliable).