Opinion ID: 2156846
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the district court correctly sentence Freeman on the possession of marijuana conviction in accordance with Iowa Code section 124.401(5) based on its findings Freeman had previously been convicted two or more times for violating chapter 124?

Text: Freeman advanced this same argument in his appeal of a separate criminal case. State v. Freeman, 705 N.W.2d 286, 291 (Iowa 2005). There we held the district court should not have considered Freeman as a third offender, because he did not commit his second offense after his first conviction. Id. The same result is required in the present case because the offenses and convictions used by the district court to enhance Freeman's penalty in the separate case are the same offenses used by the district court to enhance the penalty in this case. Id. at 287, 291. Accordingly, the sentencing court should not have considered Freeman as a third offender in this case because he committed his second offense before his first conviction.