IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 15–1827

Filed November 18, 2016

SHAWN ALLEN JAMES,

Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,

Appellee.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. 

Hanson, Judge.

An inmate seeks reversal of a district court order denying 

recalculation of earned-time credit. DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT

REVERSED; CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

Shawn Allen James, pro se, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, for appellee. 
2

PER CURIAM. 

Shawn Allen James, an offender incarcerated under the control of 

the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC), challenges its calculation of 

his earned-time credit. The same legal issue is presented in Breeden v. 

Iowa Department of Corrections, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 2016), decided 

today. Our holding in Breeden is dispositive and requires that James’s 

earned-time credit be recalculated at the rate of 1.2 days for each day of 

good conduct. Id. at ___. 

James was convicted of attempted murder and terrorism with 

intent in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.11 and 708.6 in August of 

2000. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to 

exceed twenty-five years. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.7 (2001),1 a 

mandatory minimum sentence of five years for each offense was also 

imposed. James was a juvenile when he committed the offenses. 

Attempted murder is a crime listed in Iowa Code section 902.12 that

requires offenders to serve a mandatory minimum term of seven-tenths, 

or seventy percent, of their sentence before being eligible for parole or 

work release. The IDOC calculated James’s earned-time accumulation 

according to Iowa Code section 903A.2(1) (2001), which provides,

For purposes of calculating the amount of time by which an 

inmate’s sentence may be reduced, inmates shall be grouped 

into the following two sentence categories: 

a. Category “A” sentences are those sentences which 

are not subject to a maximum accumulation of earned time 

of fifteen percent of the total sentence of confinement under 

section 902.12. . . . An inmate of an institution under the 

1Iowa Code section 902.7 provides that if a person is found guilty of a forcible 

felony “and that the person represented the person was in the immediate possession 

and control of a dangerous weapon, displayed a dangerous weapon in a threatening 

manner, or was armed with a dangerous weapon while participating in the forcible 

felony,” the person must serve a minimum of five years before being eligible for parole. 

 
3

control of the department of corrections who is serving a 

category “A” sentence is eligible for a reduction of sentence 

equal to one and two-tenths 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. . . . 

. . . .

b. Category “B” sentences are those sentences which 

are subject to a maximum accumulation of earned time of 

fifteen percent of the total sentence of confinement under 

section 902.12. An inmate . . . under the control of the 

department of corrections who is serving a category “B” 

sentence is eligible for a reduction of sentence equal to 

fifteen eighty-fifths of a day for each day of good conduct by 

the inmate. 

The IDOC classified James’s sentence as category “B” and computed his 

earned time at a rate of fifteen eighty-fifths of a day per each day served. 

James filed a motion to correct his sentence following this court’s 

decision in State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014) (holding automatic 

mandatory minimum sentences for juvenile offenders constitute cruel 

and unusual punishment under the Iowa Constitution). On March 13, 

2015, the Iowa District Court for Polk County resentenced James to an 

indeterminate term not to exceed twenty-five years, without the 

mandatory minimum under section 902.12.2 The sentencing order did 

not designate an earned-time accumulation rate, but it provided,

Any term of incarceration imposed may be reduced from the 

maximum sentence because of statutory earned time, work 

credits and program credits. Defendant may be eligible for 

parole before the sentence is discharged subject to statutory 

restrictions or sentence reductions. 

The IDOC continued to calculate James’s earned-time accumulation at 

fifteen eighty-fifths of a day per each day served (category “B”), rather 

2The district court retained the requirement that James serve a minimum of five 

years for each offense under Iowa Code section 902.7. However, at the time of the 

resentencing, these minimums had already been served. 

 
4

than the faster 1.2 days per day served (category “A”). As such, James’s 

tentative discharge date (TDD), the earliest date he could discharge his 

sentence, assuming he had all potential earned time, remained 

January 25, 2023. 

James wrote to Offender Services complaining of the calculation, 

stating, “As of 3-13-15 my 902.12 [mandatory minimum] has been 

removed from my sentence and I now request that in accordance with my 

new sentencing order that I be re-classified from Category ‘b’ sentence to 

Category ‘A’ sentence.” Tamia Salviati, IDOC records officer, responded 

by letter on April 6, 2015:

The DOC is aware of your concerns. However, the 

decision in the Lyle case did not change the underlying 

nature of the sentence for which you were convicted. The 

decision only eliminated the minimum sentence component.

The requirements under 903A.2(1)(b), Category B are 

still subject to a maximum accumulation of earned time of 

15% of the total sentence of confinement under 902.12. An 

inmate of an institution under the control of the DOC who is 

serving a category B sentence is eligible for a reduction of 

sentence equal to fifteen eighty-fifths of a day for each day of 

good conduct. There is no language in your sentencing order 

that alters the nature of the conviction under 903A.2(1)(b). 

Only the minimum sentence was changed.

Therefore, do not expect a change in your TDD.

On April 13, 2015, James filed a pro se motion to correct an illegal 

sentence in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. The district court 

denied the motion on April 23, finding that James was not challenging 

the sentencing order, but instead was challenging the IDOC’s

“calculation of the time he [was] required to serve under that Court 

Order.” The district court stated the correct form of relief was an 

application for postconviction relief under Iowa Code section 822.2(e) or 

(f) (2015). 
5

On May 4, James filed a pro se application for postconviction relief.

On May 14, he filed a brief in support of his application and a motion for 

summary disposition, asserting the IDOC’s calculation of his sentence 

violated Lyle, the text of sections 902.12 and 903A.2, and the Due 

Process Clause of the Federal Constitution. See Iowa Code § 822.6

(allowing summary disposition in postconviction relief actions). 

Specifically, James alleged his entire sentence should be recalculated as 

category “A” because his mandatory minimum had been removed. If 

James’s sentence had been calculated under category “A,” he alleged he 

would be eligible for discharge. 

The State filed a resistance and cross-motion for summary 

judgment on June 1, arguing it was the conviction for a crime listed in 

section 902.12—and not the mandatory minimum imposed by that 

section—that controlled the earned-time accrual rate. The State asserted 

that Lyle did not alter the methods of calculating earned time because 

Lyle only addressed mandatory minimum sentence requirements, not

“earned time accrual rate or any other matter related to the actual length 

of the sentence of juvenile offenders.” At the hearing on August 21, all 

parties agreed the facts were not in dispute and the issue to be 

determined was one of law. 

On October 19, the district court granted the State’s motion for 

summary judgment and dismissed James’s application for postconviction 

relief. The district court relied on an earlier case from Polk County, 

Breeden v. Iowa Department of Corrections, No. CVCV049065 (Iowa Dist. 

Ct. May 11, 2015). The district court found that the IDOC correctly

classified James’s sentence as category “B” and that such classification 

did not offend Lyle, sections 903A.2 and 902.12, or the Iowa 
6

Constitution. James filed a notice of appeal on November 6, and we 

retained the appeal. 

II. Standard of Review. 

Postconviction proceedings, including summary dismissals, are 

reviewed for errors at law. Castro v. State, 795 N.W.2d 789, 792 (Iowa 

2011). The district court’s interpretation of a statute is reviewed for 

errors at law. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 616 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Iowa 2000) 

(en banc). To the extent James’s claim raises constitutional issues, our 

review is de novo. Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012). 

III. Disposition. 

Based on our holding today in Breeden, we reverse and vacate the 

district court’s ruling and remand this case for entry of an order directing 

the IDOC to recalculate James’s sentence at the category “A” rate for all 

his time served. ___ N.W.2d at ___. 

DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT REVERSED; CASE REMANDED 

WITH DIRECTIONS. 

This opinion shall not be published.