IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1079

Filed March 7, 2018

PABLO BENAVIDEZ,

Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Respondent-Appellee.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, 

Judge.

An inmate challenges the penalty imposed upon the dismissal of his third 

application for postconviction relief. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH 

DIRECTIONS.

Erin M. Carr of Carr & Wright, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee State.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2

DANILSON, Chief Judge.

Pablo Benavidez appeals the sanction imposed by the district court for the 

summary dismissal of his third application for postconviction relief (PCR). 

Specifically, Benavidez asserts the district court misinterpreted the available 

statutory sanctions.

We review claims involving the interpretation of statutes for correction of 

errors at law. State v. Harrington, 893 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Iowa 2017). 

Pursuant to Iowa Code section 610A.2 (2016), if the district court finds an

inmate has filed a frivolous civil action, the court may dismiss the action. See 

Maghee v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 712 N.W.2d 687, 691 (Iowa 2006). If the court 

dismisses the action, the inmate is subject to penalties pursuant to Iowa Code 

section 610A.3. Id. Section 610A.3 provides:

(1) If an action or appeal brought by an inmate or prisoner in 

state court is dismissed pursuant to section 610A.2, or, if brought in 

federal court, is dismissed under any of the principles enumerated 

in section 610A.2, the inmate shall be subject to the following 

penalties:

(a) The loss of some or all of the earned time credits 

acquired by the inmate or prisoner. Previous dismissals 

under section 610A.2 may be considered in determining the 

appropriate level of penalty.

(b) If the inmate or prisoner has no earned time 

credits to deduct, the order of the court or the disciplinary 

hearing may deduct up to fifty percent of the average 

balance of the inmate account under section 904.702 or of 

any prisoner account.

A penalty appears to be mandatory. See Iowa Code § 610A.3(1) (stating 

“the inmate shall be subject to” penalties (emphasis added)); Kopecky v. Iowa 

Racing & Gaming Comm’n, 891 N.W.2d 439, 443 (Iowa 2017) (“When the term 

‘shall’ appears in a statute, it generally connotes the imposition of a mandatory
3

duty.” (citation omitted)). The court has the discretion to order “[t]he loss of some 

or all of the earned time credits acquired by the inmate or prisoner.” Iowa Code 

§ 610A.3(1)(a); see Maghee, 712 N.W.2d at 695 (“Because this provision does 

not mandate a set penalty, the sanction must rest in the discretion of the district 

court.”). But “[i]f the inmate . . . has no earned time credits to deduct,” the statute 

allows deducting “up to fifty percent of the average balance of the inmate 

account.” Id. § 610A.3(1)(b).

Here, the district court concluded Benavidez’s PCR application was 

frivolous and “[a]ccordingly, fifty percent (50%) of the average balance of 

[Benavidez’s] inmate account shall be deducted pursuant to Iowa Code [section] 

610A.3(1)(a), (b).” The court makes no mention of Benavidez’s earned time 

credit. 

Benavidez asserts he has earned time credit, which the district court 

ignored. The State does not deny Benavidez has earned time credit. See id. 

§ 903A.2(1)(a) (“To the extent provided in subsection 5, category ‘A’ sentences 

also include life sentences imposed under section 902.1. An inmate of an 

institution under the control of the department of corrections who is serving a 

category ‘A’ sentence is eligible for a reduction of sentence equal to one and twotenths days for each day the inmate demonstrates good conduct and

satisfactorily participates in any program or placement status identified by the 

director to earn the reduction.”). The State asserts, however, that because 

Benavidez is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole, earned time 

credits are effectively meaningless, and the court was within its authority to find a 

sanction that would deter additional frivolous filings. The State’s argument is 
4

contrary to the plain language of the statute, and the State’s concern is a matter 

to be addressed through legislation. 

We therefore reverse the court’s order deducting a portion of the inmate’s

account, and we remand for a determination as to the appropriate sanction under 

section 610A.3(1)(a). 

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.