Title: State v. Grimme

State: iowa

Issuer: Iowa Supreme Court

Document:

274 N.W.2d 331 (1979) STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Gary Robert GRIMME, Appellant. No. 62021. Supreme Court of Iowa. January 24, 1979. Rehearing Denied March 15, 1979. *332 *333 Paul J. Kaufman, of Leifker Law Offices, Dubuque, for appellant. Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and James Schilling, Dubuque, Asst. County Atty., for appellee. Considered by REYNOLDSON, C. J., and LeGRAND, McCORMICK, ALLBEE and McGIVERIN, JJ. McCORMICK, Justice. The principal question here is whether defendant Gary Robert Grimme was denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution when he was removed from a drug treatment facility and sentenced to prison without an evidentiary hearing. Defendant raised this question in a motion in arrest of judgment which was overruled by the trial court.[1] We hold that defendant was denied due process, reverse the court's order, and remand for further proceedings. Defendant was charged with delivery of a schedule I controlled substance in violation of § 204.401(1)(a), The Code, based upon an alleged sale of one gram of heroin to a state agent on July 22, 1976. He pled guilty to the charge on June 10, 1977. After a presentence investigation, the court found defendant to be dependent on controlled substances within the meaning of § 204.409(2) and on July 14, 1977, committed him for treatment to ADAPT, a private drug treatment facility located in Des Moines. Approximately two weeks later the trial court received a communication from ADAPT and on August 1, 1977, entered an order reciting defendant had become unacceptable to ADAPT and requiring him to be brought before the court for sentencing on August 4, 1977. At the proceeding on August 4, the court called the administrator of ADAPT as a witness to explain why the agency found defendant unacceptable. Counsel for defendant, Russel Neuwoehner, asked to make a statement for the record, and permission was granted. His statement was as follows: In response the court said: Testimony of the ADAPT administrator then commenced. During the course of his testimony, the administrator said ADAPT was willing to give defendant another chance. The trial court then terminated the proceeding with the following comments: On September 27, 1977, the trial court received a new report from ADAPT finding defendant "inappropriate and unacceptable" for its program. The court ordered him returned for sentencing. When defendant was brought before the court on September 30, the following occurred: Defendant subsequently obtained present counsel who filed a motion in arrest of judgment in his behalf, alleging several grounds. They included allegations of (1) denial of due process in failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing with accompanying safeguards before terminating his commitment to ADAPT and sentencing him to prison, (2) termination of the commitment to ADAPT contrary to the provisions of § 204.409(2), (3) error in refusing to give him an accommodation hearing, and (4) imposition of an excessive sentence. Attorney Neuwoehner and defendant testified at the hearing on the motion. Mr. Neuwoehner said he had received no notice of any alleged misconduct of defendant when he was returned for sentencing on September 30. All he knew was that the court order said ADAPT had found him unacceptable. In explaining his failure to request an evidentiary hearing when defendant was provided the opportunity for allocution at sentencing, he said: Defendant's testimony included the following: Defendant testified he had not been advised he had a right to request an accommodation hearing despite his plea of guilty to the delivery charge, and attorney Neuwoehner confirmed that testimony. The trial court overruled the motion in arrest of judgment, holding that defendant's right of allocution had afforded him an opportunity to make whatever showing he wished in resisting judgment. The court found the objection which was raised on that occasion was "not supported by law". The court also held that an accommodation hearing would have been fruitless because defendant had admitted the truth of the State's minutes of testimony during the guilty plea proceeding. I. The due process claim. Defendant's due process contention arises from principles enunciated in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S. Ct. 2593, 33 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1972). If an individual is threatened with State action which will deprive him of life, liberty or property, he is entitled to due process. What process is due depends upon the nature of the government function and individual interest involved. In Morrissey the Supreme Court recognized that a parolee has a protected interest in his continued liberty. A probationer's interest in avoiding incarceration is similarly protected. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S. Ct. 1756, 36 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1973). Even a prisoner's interest in earning good time credit is a protected liberty. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974). See also Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 96 S. Ct. 1551, 47 L. Ed. 2d 810 (1976). In contrast, when state law authorizes a prisoner to be placed in any of its prisons, no liberty interest is implicated by transfer of an inmate between them without hearing. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S. Ct. 2532, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1976). Defendant's status as a resident of ADAPT was closer to that of a probationer than that of a prisoner. He was not in prison, not even having been sentenced. The commitment was an alternative to imprisonment, designed under § 204.409(2), to permit him to overcome his drug dependency and thereby earn a chance to avoid the otherwise mandatory maximum term of incarceration. His sentence could be remitted in whole or in part, and he could be placed on probation and remain out of prison. In these circumstances we hold that defendant had a liberty interest while committed to ADAPT which could not be taken from him without due process. Cases decided in other jurisdictions in analogous situations are in accord. See United States v. Taylor, 305 F. Supp. 1150 (E.D.N.Y.1969); United States v. Thornton, 344 F. Supp. 249 (D.Del.1972); In re Bye, 12 Cal. 3d 96, 115 Cal. Rptr. 382, 524 P.2d 854 (1974), cert. denied, sub nom. Procunier v. Bye, 420 U.S. 996, 95 S. Ct. 1437, 43 L. Ed. 2d 679 (1975); Ball v. Jones, 43 A.D.2d 281, 351 N.Y.S.2d 199 (1974), modified on other grounds, sub nom. Pannell v. Jones, 36 N.Y.2d 339, 368 N.Y.S.2d 467, 329 N.E.2d 159 (1975). Although In re Bye and Ball v. Pannell involved termination of outpatient status rather than termination of commitment itself, the principle is similar. We must next decide what process was due defendant before his commitment to ADAPT could be terminated. Notice and opportunity for hearing are essential to procedural due process. Auxier v. Woodward State Hospital-School, 266 N.W.2d 139, 142 (Iowa 1978). We believe due process requires that a defendant's commitment to a drug treatment facility under § 204.409(2) not be terminated for misconduct or unacceptability until he *337 receives (1) written notice of the grounds alleged to justify terminating his commitment, (2) disclosure of the evidence against him, (3) the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence before the committing court, and (4) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, unless the court specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation. See Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, 411 U.S. at 786, 93 S. Ct. at 1761-1762, 36 L. Ed. 2d at 664; In re Bye, supra, 115 Cal. Rptr. at 391, 524 P.2d at 863; Ball v. Jones, supra, 43 A.D.2d at 287, 351 N.Y.S.2d at 206. The question remains whether defendant was denied due process in the present case. Although defendant objected at the August 4 hearing to lack of notice of his alleged misconduct, he did not repeat this objection in the September 30 proceeding. He next raised this issue in a brief filed in support of his motion in arrest of judgment. We assume, without deciding, that his failure to urge the objection in the September 30 proceeding bars him from now asserting a denial of due process because of absence of written notice of the basis of that proceeding. Cf. State v. Farmer, 234 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa 1975). The sequence of events surrounding the evidentiary hearing issue presents a different picture. Defendant's first attorney requested the opportunity to present evidence in the August 4 proceeding, but the trial court said he did not have a right to do so. The court viewed it as a matter of grace. Counsel had no occasion to pursue the issue because the court decided to return defendant to ADAPT. However, the court did tell defendant: "When you become unacceptable to ADAPT, you will go to the penitentiary. It's like that." When ADAPT subsequently informed the court defendant had indeed become unacceptable, the court did not order a hearing on that issue. Instead, the court ordered defendant returned for sentencing. It was not unreasonable for defendant's first attorney to conclude, as he testified he did, that the trial court had foreclosed any idea of an evidentiary hearing regarding defendant's unacceptability to ADAPT. If defendant desired an evidentiary hearing, the attorney should have made a record to that effect during the September 30 sentencing proceeding. However, in view of the trial court's earlier indication of the futility of such effort, we do not believe the defendant should be penalized for having waited to raise the issue until his motion in arrest of judgment. See State v. Allen, 224 N.W.2d 237, 241 (Iowa 1974); State v. Miller, 204 N.W.2d 834, 841 (Iowa 1973). It was not too late then for the trial court to change its position and accord defendant a hearing if it was so inclined, but the court was not willing to do so. The purpose of requiring a timely objection is to alert the trial court in time to permit the defect to be corrected, if the objection is good. State v. Williams, 207 N.W.2d 98, 109-110 (Iowa 1973). That purpose was served here. Defendant's opportunity for allocution in the September 30 sentencing proceeding fell far short of an evidentiary hearing of the kind to which he was entitled. The allegations and evidence against him were not disclosed. He had been earlier warned he had no right to be heard or to present evidence. No adverse witnesses were produced. Under this record his commitment to ADAPT was terminated without due process of law. II. The statutory claim. Three circumstances are defined in § 204.409(2) for return to court of a defendant committed for drug treatment under its provisions. One exists when he has violated a provision of Code chapter 204. The second exists when he "has received maximum benefit from the program", and the third exists when he has recovered. Defendant contends none of these circumstances was established in this case. No violation of chapter 204 during his stay with ADAPT was either alleged or shown. The State implicitly admitted he received *338 no benefit from the program and had not recovered from his drug dependency. The issue of statutory interpretation is whether "maximum benefit" includes the situation where a commitment to the treatment facility is terminated because of the accused person's inability or unwillingness to cooperate in therapy. We believe it must do so. The question is one of legislative intent. State v. Prybil, 211 N.W.2d 308, 311 (Iowa 1973). The legislature obviously did not intend that an individual who was not amenable to treatment should remain in the treatment facility. Thus, we conclude that the term "maximum benefit" was intended to include all situations in which the defendant would not benefit from further efforts at treatment in the facility, even though the result might be no benefit from the commitment. In this manner the legislature has also established the standard for determining when a recalcitrant defendant should have his commitment to the facility terminated. It should be terminated when the trial court finds the purposes of commitment will no longer reasonably be served. The court has discretion to order the commitment initially. State v. Horton, 231 .N.W.2d 36 (Iowa 1975). It must also have discretion to terminate it when the treatment facility can do nothing further for the defendant. An allegation that a defendant has received maximum benefit from treatment includes such situations. We find no merit in defendant's assertion that the court lacked authority to terminate his commitment. III. The accommodation hearing claim. Defendant contends he should have been given the right to an accommodation hearing prior to sentencing because he had not been advised of his right to request such a hearing after his plea of guilty to the delivery charge. See State v. Barrett, 250 N.W.2d 31 (Iowa 1977). The problem with this contention is that defendant did not have the right to an accommodation hearing. This offense occurred July 22, 1976. The bifurcated procedure under § 204.410, The Code, 1975, which was involved in State v. Barrett, supra, was eliminated by a statutory amendment effective July 1, 1976. Acts 66 G.A., Ch. 1245, ch. 4 § 231. Under the amendment, as in the present Code, an accommodation offense is included in a delivery charge. See § 204.410, The Code. In this case defendant pled guilty to the major charge and thereby gave up any right to be convicted only of the included offense. He did not have the right which he claims he should have been permitted belatedly to exercise. IV. The sentencing claim. Defendant alleges his sentence was excessive. The sentence was within statutory limits and would not be excessive unless it resulted from an abuse of discretion. State v. Noonan, 246 N.W.2d 236, 237 (Iowa 1976). The record is not clear that the trial court recognized its discretion under § 204.409(2) in sentencing defendant. Because the sentence must be vacated for further proceedings under the statute in any event, we do not decide that issue. However, we note that a trial court does have discretion in sentencing a defendant whose commitment for treatment has been terminated. We do not intimate what the sentence should be, only that the court's discretion must be exercised. See State v. Robbins, 257 N.W.2d 63, 69-70 (Iowa 1977). We reverse the order overruling defendant's motion in arrest of judgment and vacate the sentence. The trial court shall afford defendant a hearing upon proper notice on the issue of terminating his commitment to ADAPT in accordance with the procedures required in this opinion. If, after hearing, the court finds the commitment should be terminated, it may do so and then proceed to resentence defendant, exercising its discretion in accordance with § 204.409(2). REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. [1] The court's ruling was an appealable final judgment under principles explained in State v. Gillespie, 271 N.W.2d 686 (Iowa 1978).