State of Iowa v. Creon Duwayne Rashard Davis ( 2024 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1525
Filed January 24, 2024
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CREON DUWAYNE RASHARD DAVIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Paul D. Miller,
Judge.
Creon Davis appeals his sentence for second-degree sexual abuse.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
Creon Davis pleaded guilty to one count of sexual abuse in the second
degree. The crime was committed when Davis was a juvenile. The district court
sentenced him to a twenty-five-year term of incarceration with no mandatory
minimum, ordered him to pay various financial obligations, required him to register
as a sex offender for life, and imposed a special sentence pursuant to Iowa Code
section 903B.1 (2022). Davis appeals and challenges his sentence on multiple
grounds.1
We review sentencing challenges for correction of errors at law. State v.
Fetner, 959 N.W.2d 129, 133 (Iowa 2021). “We will not reverse a sentence unless
there is an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State
v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted). However, when a district court is unaware it has discretion with respect
to a sentencing provision “we typically vacate and remand for resentencing.” Id.
at 67 (citation omitted).
Here, the State concedes that the district court was unaware that
section 901.5(13) gave it discretion to suspend the special sentence otherwise
required by section 903B.1 because Davis was a minor at the time of the offense.
See State v. Hess, 983 N.W.2d 279, 286–90 (Iowa 2022).2 The State concedes
1 Because Davis only challenges his sentence, Davis has good cause to appeal
despite his guilty plea. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (requiring a defendant who
pleads guilty to any offense other than a class “A” felony to establish good cause
to appeal); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (holding a defendant
has good cause to appeal following a guilty plea when the defendant is challenging
the sentence imposed).
2 We note the district court did not have the benefit of Hess at the time of
sentencing.
3
this entitles Davis to resentencing, and we agree. As sentencing involves
interweaving a variety of decisions such as incarceration, financial obligations, and
collateral matters, we do not view any one of those decisions in isolation.
Changing one of those sentencing decisions may impact other sentencing
decisions. As there was an error in failing to exercise discretion as to the special-
sentence aspect of the sentence, and we do not know how much deciding that
issue may impact the other aspects of the sentence, it is necessary to vacate the
entire sentence and remand to the district court to sentence Davis anew. As
Davis’s other sentencing challenges address procedures and outcomes that may
not be repeated on resentencing, we decline to address them.
We vacate Davis’s sentence and remand for resentencing. As part of
resentencing, the district court shall exercise its discretion in all respects, including
deciding whether to suspend the special sentence.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.