Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 126 / 05-0364 Filed March 23, 2007 STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, vs. CHARLES EDWARD ROSS III, Appellant.

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joel D. Novak, Judge.

Defendant seeks further review of court of appeals decision rejecting, in part, his challenge to imposition of fines and mandatory minimum sentences on two convictions of second-degree robbery as a habitual offender. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; SENTENCES VACATED IN PART AND AFFIRMED IN PART.

Patricia A. Reynolds, Acting State Appellate Defender, Nan Jennisch, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant. Charles Edward Ross III, Fort Dodge, pro se.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and James P. Ward, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

2 TERNUS, Chief Justice. The appellant, Charles Edward Ross III, challenges his sentences on two counts of robbery in the second degree as a habitual offender. He claims the court was without authority to impose a fine because neither the robbery statute nor the habitual-offender statute provide for a fine, a claim with which the State agrees. Ross's second challenge to his sentence

focuses on the court's imposition of a period of imprisonment "as provided by Iowa Code section[] . . . 902.12," which requires a defendant to serve a minimum of seventy percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He claims this statute does not apply to sentences imposed on habitual offenders. The defendant's appeal was transferred to the court of appeals. That court vacated the defendant's sentences in part, holding the district court was without authority to impose a fine. The court of appeals refused to address the defendant's challenge to the applicability of section 902.12, holding error had not been preserved. We granted further review. We agree the district court had no

authority to impose a fine on the charges of second-degree robbery as a habitual offender. We disagree, however, with the court of appeals'

disposition of the defendant's challenge to the mandatory minimum aspect of his sentences. Finding no error preservation problem and addressing this claim on the merits, we conclude section 902.12 does apply, and the court properly sentenced the defendant to serve a minimum of seventy percent of his sentence. Accordingly, we vacate the court of appeals'

decision, vacate that portion of the defendant's sentences imposing a fine, and affirm the balance of the sentences imposed by the district court.

3 I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Ross pled guilty as a habitual offender to two counts of second-degree robbery. See Iowa Code

Download STATE OF IOWA vs. CHARLES EDWARD ROSS III.pdf

Iowa Law