Keith Wolf v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1606
Filed May 12, 2021
KEITH WOLF,
Applicant-Appellant,
vs.
STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling,
Judge.
Keith Wolf appeals the order granting summary disposition in favor of the
State on his application for postconviction relief. AFFIRMED.
Thomas Hurd of Law Office of Thomas Hurd PLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DOYLE, Judge.
Keith Wolf1 applied for postconviction relief (PCR) from his 2003 conviction
of third-degree sexual abuse. Wolf filed his PCR application after the Iowa
Department of Public Safety determined in 2018 that he must register as a sex
offender for life. In his application, filed without the aid of counsel, Wolf argued
that the lifetime registration requirement violates the federal and state constitution
prohibitions on ex post facto punishment.
The State moved for summary disposition of the PCR action. It argued (1)
the PCR action is time-barred, (2) the only available avenue of relief was through
filing an administrative appeal, which Wolf failed to pursue, (3) a 2009 amendment
to the sex-offender-registry statute is not ex post facto, and (4) the amendment did
not increase Wolf’s punishment. The PCR court granted the State’s motion “for
the reasons set forth in said motion.”
We review summary disposition of a PCR action for errors at law. See
Schmidt v. State, 909 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Iowa 2018). The court may grant
summary disposition if the record shows no dispute as to the material facts and
the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See id. We view the
record and inferences drawn from it in the light most favorable to Wolf. See id.On appeal, Wolf advances three claims. He first argues his PCR application
should be liberally construed to assert a claim under Iowa Code section
822.2(1)(e), which allows a person to apply for PCR if “[t]he person’s sentence has
1 The applicant-appellant’s name is spelled various ways throughout documents
filed in the district and appellate courts: Keith Wolf, Keith A. Wolf, Keith Allan
Wolfe, and Keith Allen Wolfe. We use “Keith Wolf” in this opinion as that is the
appellation applicant-appellant used in his handwritten pro se PCR application.
3
expired, or probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked,
or the person is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint.” Wolf
argues that the requirement of exhausting administrative remedies does not apply
to claims brought under this section. Because Wolf never raised this argument
below and the PCR court never ruled on it, we decline to address it on appeal.
See Goode v. State, 920 N.W.2d 520, 526 (Iowa 2018) (“As a general rule, we do
not address issues presented on appeal for the first time . . . .”).
Wolf also argues his original sentence did not require lifetime registration.
His argument rests on statutory interpretation. The version of the statute in effect
at the time of his conviction states:
A person who is required to register under this chapter shall,
upon a second or subsequent conviction that requires a second
registration, or upon conviction of an aggravated offense,[2] or who
has previously been convicted of one or more offenses that would
have required registration under this chapter, register for the rest of
the person’s life.
Iowa Code § 692A.2(3) (2001) (emphasis added). Wolf reads this section to
require lifetime registration only if a person convicted of an aggravated offense had
been before convicted of an offense requiring registration. But the prior version of
section stated, “A person who is required to register under this chapter shall, upon
a second or subsequent conviction, register for the rest of the person’s life.” Id.
§ 692A.2(3) (1999). Reading the statute to apply only to those already required to
register at the time of commission of an aggravated offense would limit lifetime
registration to those who have previously been convicted of one or more offenses,
2 The definition of “aggravated offense” included convictions for third-degree
sexual abuse. Iowa Code § 692A.1(1)(c).
4
rendering the amendment superfluous. Cf. In re Chapman, 890 N.W.2d 853, 857
(Iowa 2017) (presuming the legislature included all parts of a statute for a purpose
and holding the court will avoid reading the statute in a way that would make any
portion of it redundant or irrelevant); see also State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728,
734 (Iowa 2002) (comparing versions of the statute and noting that the amendment
broadened the lifetime registration requirement to include persons convicted of an
“aggravated offense”).
Because the lifetime registration requirement was in place at the time of
Wolf’s his conviction, his ex post facto claim fails as a matter of law. We need not
consider his remaining claim about the timeliness of his application. We affirm the
grant of summary disposition to dismiss his PCR application.
AFFIRMED.