State of Iowa v. Iowa District Court for Polk County ( 2024 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 23-1555
    Filed November 13, 2024
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,
    Judge.
    The State appeals the district court order placing a sexually violent predator
    in transitional release. WRIT ANNULLED.
    Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Sarah Jennings, Assistant Attorney
    General, and Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor General, for appellant State.
    Amy Kepes, Assistant State Public Defender, Special Defense Unit, Des
    Moines, for appellee.
    Heard by Schumacher, P.J., Badding, J., and Mullins, S.J.*
    *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
    (2024).
    2
    MULLINS, Senior Judge.
    The State appeals the district court’s ruling placing David Stumbo in
    transitional release from sexually violent predator (SVP) commitment.1 The sole
    question on appeal is whether, under Iowa Code chapter 229A (2023), the court
    could hear recommendations from Stumbo about his placement after it determined
    he violated his release plan. We find the district court acted within its statutory
    authority when it heard Stumbo’s evidence and recommendations.2 The writ is
    annulled.
    I. Background
    In 2015, the court civilly committed Stumbo as a sexually violent predator
    under chapter 229A. In 2022, the court determined after an annual review hearing
    that Stumbo had shown his “mental abnormality has so changed that he is not
    likely to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses if
    discharged.” So, the Iowa Department of Health and Human Services entered into
    a stipulation to place Stumbo on release with a supervision plan. The court
    adopted the plan, releasing Stumbo.
    Several months later, the State petitioned for ex parte revocation of
    Stumbo’s supervised release, alleging that he violated the terms of the plan by
    communicating with a victim over text. The court found good cause to grant the
    1 The State filed a notice of appeal, which the supreme court recast as a petition
    for writ of certiorari before it transferred the case to the court of appeals.
    2 The State’s second contention on appeal is that its interpretation of Iowa Code
    section 229A.9B(5) does not violate Stumbo’s due process rights. Because we
    find no error in the court’s statutory interpretation and the district court did not rule
    there was a constitutional violation, we do not address the issue. See State v.
    Bauler, 8 N.W.3d 892, 908 (Iowa 2024). Also, the State is not challenging the
    merits of the placement decision.
    3
    ex parte request, and Stumbo was taken back into custody and returned to a
    secured facility.
    On August 17, the court heard evidence on whether Stumbo violated the
    terms of his release plan. At the hearing, the State argued the department was
    the only party allowed to make placement or release recommendations. Stumbo
    countered that disallowing his argument on the placement decision was
    inconsistent with the statute and violated his due process rights.
    The court informed the parties that it first needed to examine the exhibits
    offered to decide whether a violation occurred. It further informed them that, if it
    found a violation, it would hold a hearing the following week on placement. In the
    meantime, the court accepted briefs on the State’s objections to Stumbo giving
    recommendations.       The State had not yet filed the department’s placement
    recommendation. A few days later, the court filed its ruling finding Stumbo violated
    his release plan.
    At   the     placement   hearing,   the   court   reserved    ruling   on   the
    recommendations question but allowed Stumbo to present evidence and argument
    as an offer of proof. He presented the expert testimony of a clinical psychologist
    and argued for a return to release with supervision. The court ordered Stumbo to
    be returned to a transitional release program              over the department’s
    recommendation that he be returned to a secured facility. The ruling incorporated
    the evidence and recommendations of both parties.           Addressing the State’s
    objection, the court ruled
    the decision to be made by the Court is a discretionary one.
    Consequently, even if the Respondent does not have a right to
    present any such arguments or evidence as the State suggests, it
    4
    seems clear that the Court has the right, in its exercise of discretion,
    to permit Respondent to provide evidence or argument so that the
    Court can make the best decision possible on the disputed issue of
    placement.
    The State appeals.
    II. Standard of Review
    “Certiorari is an action at law; therefore, our review is at law.” Ary v. Iowa
    Dist. Ct., 
    735 N.W.2d 621
    , 624 (Iowa 2007).           “[W]e may examine only the
    jurisdiction of the district court and the legality of its actions.” Reis v. Iowa Dist.
    Ct., 
    787 N.W.2d 61
    , 66 (Iowa 2010) (quoting Christensen v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 
    578 N.W.2d 675
    , 678 (Iowa 1998)). “Illegality exists when the court’s factual findings
    lack substantial evidentiary support, or when the court has not properly applied the
    law.” Christensen, 578 N.W.2d at 678. In a certiorari action, “[t]he plaintiff bears
    the burden to prove the illegality.” Nash Finch Co. v. City Council of City of Cedar
    Rapids, 
    672 N.W.2d 822
    , 825 (Iowa 2003) (quoting City of Grimes v. Polk Cnty.
    Bd. of Supervisors, 
    495 N.W.2d 751
    , 752 (Iowa 1993)).
    III. Analysis
    The State contends the court exceeded its authority under chapter 229A
    when it allowed Stumbo to give recommendations on his own placement after it
    determined he violated his release plan. The State’s contention requires us to
    engage in statutory interpretation.
    “We start with the often-repeated goal of statutory interpretation which is to
    discover the true intention of the legislature.” Gardin v. Long Beach Mortg. Co.,
    
    661 N.W.2d 193
    , 197 (Iowa 2003). The “first step in ascertaining the true intention
    of the legislature is to look to the statute’s language.”      
    Id.
       “If the statute is
    5
    unambiguous, we look no further than the statute’s express language.” Kay-
    Decker v. Iowa State Bd. of Tax Rev., 
    857 N.W.2d 216
    , 223 (Iowa 2014) (quoting
    Rolfe State Bank v. Gunderson, 
    794 N.W.2d 561
    , 564 (Iowa 2011)). “If, however,
    the statute is ambiguous, we inquire further to determine the legislature’s intent in
    promulgating the statute.” 
    Id.
     “A statute is ambiguous when reasonable persons
    could disagree as to its meaning.” Naumann v. Iowa Prop. Assessment Appeal
    Bd., 
    791 N.W.2d 258
    , 261 (Iowa 2010).
    The statute in question is section 229A.9B(5), which provides,
    If the court determines a [release plan] violation occurred, the court
    shall receive release recommendations from the department and
    either order that the committed person be returned to release with
    supervision or placed in a transitional release program, or be
    confined in a secure facility. The court may impose further conditions
    upon the committed person if returned to release with supervision or
    placed in the transitional release program. If the court determines
    no violation occurred, the committed person shall be returned to
    release with supervision.
    The State contends the unambiguous language of the statute contemplates only
    the department providing recommendations and, when the district court heard from
    Stumbo, it violated this “explicit and mandatory statutory procedure.” It further
    challenges the district court’s finding that the evidence it hears is also within its
    discretion when making the placement decision. Instead, the State urges that
    although the court has discretion in the ultimate placement decision, the statute
    removes    from   its   discretion   who   can   provide   evidence   and    release
    recommendations, limiting those to the department.
    To support the explicit and mandatory nature of this provision, the State
    points to the terms “shall receive” and the omission of any other recommender. It
    also encourages us to look at older versions of the statute and observes that the
    6
    language “shall receive release recommendations from the department” has not
    changed since its 2002 enactment.3              The State also compares the
    recommendation text to the rest of subsection (5), which uses permissive terms
    that let the court decide “either”/“or” different placements and that the court “may”
    impose additional release conditions.
    The State also compares the procedure here to the procedure for
    determining a violation occurred. Under subsections (3) and (4), the court is
    required to set a hearing to “determine whether a violation of the conditions of the
    release plan occurred” where “the burden shall be upon the attorney general to
    show [the violation] by a preponderance of the evidence.”               Iowa Code
    § 229A.9B(3), (4). In contrast, subsection (5) does not provide for a separate
    hearing to determine placement and only requires the court to hear
    recommendations from the department. Id. § 229A.9B(5).
    Stumbo agrees with the State that the statute is unambiguous but reaches
    the opposite conclusion—that it means the department is not the sole source the
    court can consider. We are required to “assess the statute in its entirety, not just
    isolated words or phrases.” State v. Howse, 
    875 N.W.2d 684
    , 691 (Iowa 2016)
    (quoting Schaefer v. Putnam, 
    841 N.W.2d 68
    , 75 (Iowa 2013)). In doing so, “[w]e
    give words their ordinary and common meaning by considering the context within
    which they are used.” 
    Id.
     (citation omitted). The plain meaning of the relevant text,
    3 There have only been two amendments to this statute. First, in 2023, references
    to the “department” were amended to reflect a governmental consolidation of the
    departments of health and human services. Second, in 2018, the legislature
    removed references to release without supervision. Neither change bears on the
    present controversy.
    7
    “the court shall receive release recommendations from the department,” is that the
    court is required in mandatory language to hear from the department. See 
    Iowa Code § 4.1
    (30)(a)–(c) (explaining “shall” and “must” create a duty and a
    requirement while “may” confers a power).      But the rest of the subsection does
    not direct the court toward any particular evidence or information, nor does it
    prohibit the court’s consideration of another source.
    “Intent may be expressed by the omission, as well as the inclusion, of
    statutory terms,” and the State urges us to consider the omission of other
    recommenders. State v. Beach, 
    630 N.W.2d 598
    , 600 (Iowa 2001). It may be that
    “when the legislature expressly mentions one thing, it implies the exclusion of other
    things not specifically mentioned.”     Doe v. Iowa Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 
    786 N.W.2d 853
    , 859 (Iowa 2010). But this is not a list of items from which other items
    are excluded, it is only a requirement that the department gets to make a
    recommendation the court must consider. See, e.g., 
    id.
     (noting the amendment to
    the statute listed only six of the previous eight criteria for placement of names on
    the child abuse registry and determining it intended to exclude the additional
    criteria); see also Chesnut v. Montgomery, 
    307 F.3d 698
    , 701 (8th Cir. 2002)
    (“Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but
    omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress
    acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” (cleaned
    up)). And we should not “interpret statutes to render any part superfluous.” First
    State Bank v. Clark, 
    635 N.W.2d 29
    , 32 (Iowa 2001).                But reading the
    recommendation subsection as we do does not offend that rule. Viewed in another
    light, it creates a duty for the department to make a recommendation rather than
    8
    remain silent. At the same time, it recognizes that the department is well-situated
    to provide an informed recommendation since it has been monitoring the
    committed person through each step of the program and is aware of their prior
    treatment and condition.
    A useful contextual comparison comes from the provisions for a violation
    when the committed person is in a transitional release program. See Iowa Code
    § 229A.2(16) (“‘Transitional release’ means a conditional release from a secure
    facility operated by the department with the conditions of such release set by the
    court or the department.”). In a transitional program, the committed person is still
    under the direct “control, care, and treatment” of the department. Id. § 229A.8A(1).
    When the State alleges a violation of transitional release, the court must hold a
    hearing to determine there was a violation. Id. § 229A.8A(3)–(4). But, afterward,
    the statute provides “the court shall either order the committed person to be
    returned to the transitional release program or to be confined in a secure facility,”
    omitting a requirement that it consider any one party’s recommendation.           Id.
    § 229A.8B(5).4
    In contrast, supervised release involves less confinement and supervision
    from the department and, before the court can order the person released, the
    department must prepare a plan for “addressing the person’s needs for counseling,
    medication, community support services, residential services, vocational services,
    4 That provision goes on to use nearly identical language to its supervised release
    counterpart: “The court may impose further conditions upon the committed person
    if returned to the transitional release program. If the court determines no violation
    occurred, the committed person shall be returned to the transitional release
    program.” Iowa Code § 229A.8B(5).
    9
    substance use disorder treatment, sex offender treatment, or any other treatment
    or supervision necessary.” Id. § 229A.9A(2). Consequently, the requirement in
    subsection (5) that the court receive a recommendation from the department aligns
    with the reality that the committed person was out of close court and departmental
    supervision before the violation, and the department is capable of providing an
    informed recommendation. But it does not mean the legislature intended the
    department to be the sole source of information for the court’s decision.
    And as to omissions, equally, the legislature omitted language that would
    make the department the sole recommender, such as “only,” “just,” or “exclusively.”
    The legislature knows how to impose limits; in the same sentence of the statute, it
    constrained the court’s discretion on placement to just three options. See Iowa
    Code § 229A.9B(5) (limiting placement options to either “the committed person be
    returned to release with supervision or placed in a transitional release program, or
    be confined in a secure facility”).5 In our statutory interpretation, “[w]e may not
    extend, enlarge, or otherwise change the meaning of a statute under the guise of
    construction.” Mulhern v. Cath. Health Initiatives, 
    799 N.W.2d 104
    , 133 (Iowa
    2011). And reading the provision as written to explicitly exclude input from the
    committed person would be doing that. In oral argument, the State suggested that
    5 The legislature also exhibited its ability to exclude evidence from a factfinder’s
    consideration when it enacted section 229A.8(6)(e), which provides:
    If the director [of the department] has authorized the committed
    person to petition for discharge or for placement in a transitional
    release program and the case is before a jury, testimony by a victim
    of a prior sexually violent offense committed by the person is not
    admissible. If the director has not authorized the petition or the case
    is before the court, testimony by a victim of a sexually violent offense
    committed by the person may be admitted.
    (Emphasis added.)
    10
    chapter 299A should be read uniquely as containing an exclusion where one is not
    explicit, but we see no reason to deviate from our ordinary rules of statutory
    interpretation for this one code chapter. In addition, “the express language of [a]
    statute does not produce absurd consequences.” In re J.C., 
    857 N.W.2d 495
    , 503
    (Iowa 2014). And it would be absurd to disallow a committed person from weighing
    in on their placement—if placement was to be based solely on the department’s
    recommendation, the legislature would not direct the court to make the decision.
    Instead, the language leaves it within the court’s discretion to decide between the
    three options. In addition, the plain language only requires the court to “receive”
    the department’s input; the court may reject the department’s recommendation in
    its entirety. Iowa Code § 229A.9B(5). The two options cannot be that the court is
    either bound by the department’s recommendation or deciding in a vacuum with
    limited information in the record.
    To support his assertion that both sides must be able to present evidence
    for the court to exercise its discretion, Stumbo cites In re Det. of Anderson. 
    895 N.W.2d 131
    , 150 (Iowa 2017). Although that case did not directly address the
    question before us here, the supreme court found the statutory procedure for
    revocation of the release-with-supervision status sufficiently safeguards the
    committed person’s substantive and procedural due process rights under the
    federal and state constitutions.     See 
    id.
     In that case both parties presented
    evidence and argument on the alleged violation, but the facts do not disclose
    whether they did so regarding the placement decision. 
    Id.
     at 136–37. As part of
    its due process analysis, the court found the district court’s “ability to weigh
    different [placement] options and determine which is best based on the violation
    11
    that occurred” minimized the risk of an erroneous deprivation of Anderson’s liberty
    interests. Id. at 149. But the court did not explain what opportunity the parties had
    to weigh in on the court’s decision-making process at this particular step.
    So, the only reasonable plain reading is that subsection 299A.9B(5) is
    among the many statutory provisions where the legislature gives guidance on what
    must happen but does not state what may not happen. And, although we look to
    “legislative history of a statute, including prior enactments, when ascertaining
    legislative intent,” the absence of change does not support the State’s
    interpretation automatically either. Schaefer, 841 N.W.2d at 75.
    In addition, at oral argument, the State cited for the first time In re Detention
    of Schuman, 2 N.W.3d 33 (Iowa 2024), for the proposition that the district court
    does not have discretion to reject the department’s determinations. But that case
    addressed the process for placing a committed person in transitional release as
    an initial matter, not a violation of a release plan. See Schuman, 2 N.W.3d at 45.
    In addition, that procedure requires that the treatment provider approve a relapse
    prevention plan before the court can grant transitional release. See Iowa Code
    § 229A.8A(2)(d). In Schuman, the district court found, based on the committed
    person’s expert witness, that the proposed relapse prevention plan was
    appropriate and “worthy of acceptance,” so Schuman met all the statutory eligibility
    factors for release. 2 N.W.2d at 43. The supreme court reversed, finding that the
    statute requires the court to find that the relapse prevention plan “has been
    developed and accepted by the treatment provider,” in that case Civil Commitment
    Unit for Sexual Offenders (CCUSO), before the committed person can be deemed
    eligible for transitional release. Id. at 45. It was undisputed that CCUSO treatment
    12
    staff had not accepted the plan. Id. The supreme court found the statute did not
    allow the court to “override that requirement based on the testimony of the
    offender’s expert.” Id. at 48. Thus Schuman is inapplicable because it both
    interprets a different proceeding and explicitly places the power to accept a release
    plan in the hands of the treatment provider. Id. The court’s only job under the
    plain language of that section was to determine whether the treatment provider
    accepted the plan; “[i]t either happened or it did not.” Id. at 47. Contrary to the
    State’s contention, Schuman demonstrates that the legislature knows how to put
    matters that it deems belong in the sole judgment of the treatment providers out of
    the district court’s discretion.
    Schuman did not involve a challenge to the committed person’s right to
    present evidence in the release with supervision violations proceeding under Iowa
    Code section 229A.9B. See id. at 50–51 (distinguishing between “transitional
    release—a less restrictive level of treatment” from “discharge or supervised
    release,” where the offender would reside outside the CCUSO and in the
    community). The State does not cite, and we know of no appellate case that
    involves a district court refusing to hear the committed person’s placement
    recommendation. We think that is because the plain language of the statute
    creates a mandatory duty to hear the department’s recommendation but does not
    otherwise cabin the court’s ability to hear recommendations from any other source.
    We cannot conclude that a reasonable person would interpret this to mean the
    legislature intended to confine the district court’s discretion in what it considers in
    making these decisions. Indeed, it would be difficult in some cases for the court
    to exercise its discretion without having the necessary evidence. Considering the
    13
    statute as a whole, we find it unambiguously requires the court to consider the
    department’s recommendation but does not prohibit the court from exercising its
    discretion to consider the committed person’s evidence and recommendation.
    IV. Conclusion
    We find the State has not met its burden to prove the district court acted
    illegally. It correctly determined that subsection 229A.9B(5) allows it to consider
    placement recommendations beyond that of the department and properly
    exercised its discretion by hearing from Stumbo, the committed person. So, we
    annul the writ.
    WRIT ANNULLED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-1555

Filed Date: 11/13/2024

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024