Opinion ID: 1802090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Limits of the Trial Court's Discretion Under Iowa Code Section 124.411(1).

Text: The defendant also argues that, if both enhancements apply, the district court misapplied section 124.411(1). According to the defendant, the district court was put to an all-or-nothing choice when sentencing a repeat offender: either triple the sentence otherwise provided or give no enhanced sentence. Because the language in section 124.411(1) is similar to language contained in our indeterminate sentence statute, Iowa Code § 902.3, there is some textual support for defendant's argument. At the sentencing hearing, both the State and the defendant assumed that the court, if it chose to enhance the sentence, must triple it. During argument, the court inquired: It is correct, isn't it, that it could be doubled? It doesn't have to be tripled. The court later concluded: I don't view it as all-or-nothing, twenty or sixty. I believe I can double the twenty years to forty. The repeat-offender statute states that the district court may increase the defendant's prison term to a period not to exceed three times the term otherwise authorized. Iowa Code § 124.411(1) (emphasis added). This language is quite similar to our indeterminate sentencing statute, which reads: When a judgment of conviction of a felony other than a class A felony is entered against the person, the court, in imposing a sentence of confinement, shall commit the person into the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections for an indeterminate term, the maximum length of which shall not exceed the limits as fixed by section 707.3 or section 902.9 nor shall the term be less than the minimum term imposed by law, if a minimum sentence is provided. Id. (emphasis added). Under the general indeterminate sentencing statute, a sentencing judge must impose an indeterminate sentence for the full statutory maximum. State v. Kulish, 260 Iowa 138, 145, 148 N.W.2d 428, 433 (1967). We therefore must decide if the language not to exceed three times the term otherwise authorized invokes traditional indeterminate sentencing principles or authorizes a judge to impose an enhanced indeterminate sentence that is less than three times the sentence otherwise imposed. Under the other enhancement provision of section 124.411(1), the district court may increase a fine by not more than three times the amount otherwise authorized. Regarding the enhancement of fines, the legislature selected words indicating the upper limits of the range of discretion, not an either/or choice. Because the legislature granted the trial court a spectrum of discretion in setting the amount of the enhanced fine, we conclude that it intended the same result for the term-of-confinement enhancement appearing in the same Code section. See Wright v. State Bd. of Eng'g Exam'rs, 250 N.W.2d 412, 413 (Iowa 1977) (stating that the meaning of a word is ascertained in the light of the meaning of the words with which it is associated). We find further support for our conclusion in the Uniform Controlled Substances Act, the source for Code chapter 124. The Uniform Act's repeat-offender section provides that the trial court may sentence the defendant to a term of up to twice the term otherwise authorized. Uniform Controlled Substances Act § 408(a), 9 [pt. II] U.L.A. 607 (1988). The Uniform Act gives the sentencing judge a range of discretion. When considering the meaning of chapter 124, we shall construe it with an eye toward uniform application among the several states that have adopted the Uniform Controlled Substances Act. Iowa Code § 124.601. We view Iowa's varying language as a technical difference designed to account for indeterminate sentencing, not a substantive change in the law. [1]