IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 13-0446

Filed May 29, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CURTIS VANCE HALVERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. 

Schilling, Judge.

Defendant appeals his conviction for possessing contraband at a 

correctional facility. AFFIRMED.

Thomas Hurd of Glazebrook, Moe, Johnston & Hurd, L.L.P., Des Moines, 

for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney 

General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Tyron Rogers, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
2

MAHAN, S.J.

Curtis Halverson appeals his conviction for possessing contraband at a 

correctional facility. Halverson has not shown he received ineffective assistance 

due to counsel’s failure to challenge his conviction for possessing contraband on 

the ground Iowa Code section 719.7(3)(a) (2011) did not apply in this case. Also, 

he has not shown he received ineffective assistance due to defense counsel’s 

failure to raise the issue of whether the State presented sufficient evidence to 

show the facility was managed by the Iowa Department of Corrections.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

On November 9, 2012, a residential officer at the Burlington Residential 

Correctional Facility smelled marijuana smoke. He established the odor was 

coming from a specific room in which only Halverson was present. The officer 

stated the odor was “really strong, as if it had just been smoked in the last 

minute, maybe.” The officer conducted a pat-down search of Halverson and 

found a cigarette lighter. During a search of Halverson’s room another 

residential officer found a marijuana cigarette, which was still smoldering, above 

a ceiling tile directly over Halverson’s bed.

At the time of the incident, Halverson was a resident of the correctional 

facility on a work-release program. Halverson was charged with possessing 

contraband, a controlled substance, in an institution under the management of 

the Iowa Department of Corrections, in violation of Iowa Code section 

719.7(3)(a). After a jury trial, Halverson was found guilty of possessing 

contraband. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed five 
3

years. Halverson now appeals his conviction, claiming he received ineffective 

assistance of counsel.

II. Standard of Review

We review claims of ineffective assistance of counsel de novo. Ennenga 

v. State, 812 N.W.2d 696, 701 (Iowa 2012). To establish a claim of ineffective 

assistance of counsel, a defendant must show (1) the attorney failed to perform 

an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted to the extent it denied the defendant 

a fair trial. State v. Carroll, 767 N.W.2d 638, 641 (Iowa 2009). A defendant has 

the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence counsel was ineffective. 

See State v. McKettrick, 480 N.W.2d 52, 55 (Iowa 1992).

III. Ineffective Assistance

Halverson claims he received ineffective assistance because defense 

counsel did not file a motion challenging his conviction on the ground section 

719.7(3)(a) does not apply to the possession of contraband at the Burlington 

Residential Correctional Facility. Section 719.7(3) provides:

A person commits the offense of possessing contraband if 

the person, not authorized by law, does any of the following:

a. Knowingly introduces contraband into, or onto, the 

grounds of a secure facility for the detention or custody of juveniles, 

detention facility, jail, correctional institution, or institution under the 

management of the department of corrections.

(Emphasis added.) In this case, the trial information specifically alleged 

Halverson “did knowingly possess contraband [in an institution] under the 

management of the Department of Corrections, to-wit: a controlled substance.” 

Thus, our consideration is limited to whether the Burlington Residential 
4

Correctional Facility is an “institution under the management of the department of 

corrections.” See Iowa Code § 719.7(3)(a).

Halverson claims the correctional facility is under the jurisdiction of the 

Eighth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services, not the Iowa 

Department of Corrections and therefore section 719.7(3)(a) does not apply in 

this case. See State v. Allen, 708 N.W.2d 361, 364 (Iowa 2006) (finding there 

was no factual basis to support a guilty plea to introducing a controlled substance 

into a detention facility when the correctional facility in question was not a 

detention facility); State v. Mitchell, 650 N.W.2d 619, 620 (Iowa 2002) (finding 

there was no factual basis to support defendant’s conviction for possessing 

contraband because the statute did not apply to the facility where defendant was 

located).

1

In a recent case, the Iowa Supreme Court stated:

David Miller was committed to the residential correctional 

facility in Burlington in March 2011 following his release on parole 

from prison where he was serving a sentence for a felony offense. 

The facility is under the control of the Iowa Department of 

Corrections and is commonly referred to as a halfway house.

State v. Miller, 841 N.W.2d 583, 585 (Iowa 2014). The court noted the Burlington 

facility was a community-based correctional facility. See id. at 590.

The State asserts community-based correctional facilities, such as the 

Burlington Residential Correctional Facility, are under the management of the 

Iowa Department of Corrections. The term “management” is not defined in 

chapter 719. When a statutory term is undefined, we may consider dictionary 

 

1 Section 719.7(3) was amended in 2007, and now includes jails and detention facilities 

as specific locations where contraband may not be located. 2007 Iowa Acts ch. 89, §1.
5

definitions to determine the meaning of the word. See Schaefer v. Putnam, 841 

N.W.2d 68, 78 (Iowa 2013). One definition of “management” is “the conducting 

or supervising of something (as a business); esp.: the executive function of 

planning, organizing, coordinating, directing, controlling, and supervising any 

industrial or business project or activity with responsibility for results.” Websters 

Third New Int’l Dictionary 1372 (2002).

The Iowa Department of Corrections “has primary responsibility for 

corrections administration, corrections institutions, prison industries, and the 

development, funding, and monitoring of community-based corrections 

programs.” Iowa Code § 7E.5(1)(n). Community-based correctional programs 

are governed by chapter 905. In each judicial district, a judicial district 

department of correctional services has been created. Id. § 905.2. The district 

departments are under the direction of a board of directors and administered by a 

director employed by the board. Id. The district departments “shall furnish or 

contract for those services necessary to provide a community-based correctional 

program which meets the needs of that judicial district.” Id. This may include the 

operation of a residential correctional facility. See id. § 905.4(5); Iowa Admin. 

Code r. 201-40.1. While residential correctional facilities may be operated by a 

district department, the Iowa Department of Corrections is responsible for 

“[a]ccreditation and funding of community-based corrections programs 

including . . . residential facilities.” See Iowa Code § 904.103(1).

The Iowa Department of Corrections is to provide assistance and support 

to the district departments to aid them in complying with chapter 905. Id.

§ 905.7. The Iowa Department of Corrections has the authority to promulgate 
6

administrative rules establishing guidelines for community-based correctional 

programs under chapter 905. Id. The district department’s community-based 

correctional program must conform to the guidelines established by the Iowa 

Department of Corrections. Id. § 905.6(6). Funding for each district department

is through the Iowa Department of Corrections, and is conditional on review and 

approval of a district department’s community-based correctional program by the 

Iowa Department of Corrections. Id. § 905.8. If the Iowa Department of 

Corrections determines a district department’s community-based correctional 

program is not in compliance with the guidelines, and will not be expeditiously be 

brought into compliance, the Iowa Department of Corrections “may assume 

responsibility for administration of the district’s community-based correctional 

program on an interim basis.” Id. § 905.9.

We conclude the Burlington Residential Correctional Facility, as a 

community-based correctional program, is under the management of the Iowa 

Department of Corrections. The Iowa Department of Corrections is engaged in 

directing, controlling, and supervising community-based correctional programs 

operated by district departments. See Websters Third New Int’l Dictionary 1372 

(2002) (defining “management”). Therefore, Halverson did not receive ineffective 

assistance due to counsel’s failure to challenge his conviction for possessing 

contraband on the ground section 719.7(3)(a) did not apply in this case.

Halverson also argues that even if section 719.7(3)(a) is applicable, he 

received ineffective assistance because defense counsel did not raise the issue 

that the State failed to present evidence in his case to show the Burlington 

Residential Correctional Facility was an institution under the management of the 
7

Iowa Department of Corrections. He contends that if defense counsel had raised 

a motion on this ground it would have been successful.

During the criminal trial, Ted Gutman, the manager of the Burlington 

Residential Correctional Facility, was asked,

Q. Is your facility, is that an institution or facility that’s under 

the management of the Department of Corrections? A. We 

function under the policies of the Department of Corrections.

Gutman also stated he had worked at the facility and with the Iowa Department 

of Corrections for the same number of years. He stated the facility came under 

the intermediate sanctions code, which is chapter 901B, as a step between 

imprisonment and supervised probation.2 Grant Hummer, a residential officer, 

testified he received training through the Iowa Department of Corrections, where 

he was informed “what our job duties were and how to conduct them.”

We conclude the State presented sufficient evidence to show the 

Burlington Residential Correctional Facility was managed by the Iowa 

Department of Corrections. Halverson has not shown he received ineffective 

assistance due to defense counsel’s failure to raise this issue.

On May 16, 2014, Halverson filed a pro se brief in this case. An untimely 

pro se suppremental brief “will not be considered by the court and no response 

by the State will be allowed.” Iowa R. App. P. 6.901(2)(a). Halverson’s pro se 

brief is untimely and we will not consider it.3

 

2 District departments are required to implement an intermediate criminal sanctions 

program based on a plan which is subject to rules adopted by the Iowa Department of 

Corrections. Iowa Code § 901B.1(3). 

3

 A pro se supplemental brief must be filed within fifteen after the date counsel’s proof 

brief is filed. Iowa R. App. P. 6.901(2)(a). The proof brief here was served on 

September 20, 2013, making the pro se supplemental brief filed on May 16, 2014, 

untimely.
8

We affirm defendant’s conviction for possessing contraband.

AFFIRMED.