IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1538

Filed October 14, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ROGER MCDANIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Myron L. 

Gookin, Judge.

Roger McDaniel appeals the denial of his motion to correct an illegal 

sentence following his plea of guilty to one count of lascivious acts with a child

and sentencing. AFFIRMED.

Monte M. McCoy of McCoy Legal Services, Centerville, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Heather Ann Mapes, Assistant 

Attorney General, Richard F. Scott, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Judge.

Roger McDaniel pleaded guilty to one count of lascivious acts with a child 

in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8(3) (2011)

1

on April 23, 2013. He was 

sentenced to a five-year term of incarceration and fined under Iowa Code section 

902.9(5), assessed a surcharge under section 911.1, and specially sentenced to 

ten years’ supervision upon completion of his term of incarceration pursuant to

section 903B.2. The fine and surcharge were suspended. Mittimus issued 

immediately. McDaniel appealed his sentence, and this court affirmed. See 

State v. McDaniel, No. 13-1458, 2014 WL 1999121, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 14, 

2014). On August 4, 2014, McDaniel filed a handwritten pro se motion for 

correction of an illegal sentence in the district court. The district court denied the 

motion. McDaniel appeals.2

McDaniel’s only claim on appeal is that the special sentence mandated by 

Iowa Code section 903B.2 violates the protections against double jeopardy 

provided by the United States Constitution and that his sentence is therefore 

illegal. See U.S. Const. amend. V (“No person shall . . . be subject for the same 

offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); see also State v. Lathrop, 781 

N.W.2d 288, 293 (Iowa 2010) (“Illegal sentences may be challenged at any 

time . . . .”). We review de novo. See State v. Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 

2013).

 

1

“It is unlawful for any person sixteen years of age or older to . . . solicit a child to 

engage in a sex act . . . with or without the child’s consent . . . for the purpose of 

arousing or satisfying the sexual desires of either of them[.]” Iowa Code § 709.8(3). 

Following the legislature’s 2013 amendments, this provision is now found in Iowa Code 

section 709.8(1)(d) (2015).

2 The State asserts McDaniel should have filed for discretionary review rather than 

appealed. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.103(1); Iowa Code § 814.6. Though the State argues 

discretionary review is “more appropriate,” we consider the merits of this appeal.
3

The Double Jeopardy Clause protects defendants from “multiple 

punishments for the same offense.” Id. McDaniel argues the term of 

incarceration imposed under section 902.9 and the special sentence under 

903B.2 are two different punishments and he has therefore been subjected to

multiple punishments for the same offense.

“In considering a double jeopardy claim within the multiple punishments 

context, we are guided by the general principle that the question of what 

punishments are constitutionally permissible is no different from the question of 

what punishments the legislature intended to be imposed.” Id. at 4–5; see also

Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366–68 (1983); State v. McKettrick, 480 

N.W.2d 52, 57 (Iowa 1992). The legislature has the power to define criminal 

offenses and punishments with “‘[f]ew, if any, limitations . . . imposed by the 

Double Jeopardy Clause.’” Lindell, 828 N.W.2d at 4 (quoting Sanabria v. United 

States, 437 U.S. 54, 69 (1978)). It is clear from the mandatory terms of section 

903B.2 that the legislature intended the special sentence to be added to an 

indeterminate term of incarceration imposed under section 902.9. See Iowa 

Code § 903B.2 (imposing special sentence “in addition to any other punishment 

provided by law”). Section 903B.2 does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause 

of the federal constitution.

AFFIRMED.