Opinion ID: 2062013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the License Revocation was Mandatory on Defendant's Controlled-Substance Conviction.

Text: Defendant urges that contrary to the court's declaration at the time of sentencing it did have the discretion to suspend that portion of his sentence that called for a revocation of his driver's license under section 901.5(10). He argues that in State v. Lee, 561 N.W.2d 353, 354-55 (Iowa 1997), this court recognized the court's authority to suspend any portion of a sentence imposed for a controlled-substance conviction under section 124.401(3). That case only established that there was no limit to the court's authority to suspend a term of confinement or a fine in a prosecution under section 124.401(3). Those are the only types of sanction identified in section 901.5(3) or section 124.401(3). Consequently, neither section 901.5(3), section 124.401(3), nor the decision in Lee provide authority for suspending a license revocation mandated by section 901.5(10). We hold in this case, as in State v. Daniel, ___ N.W.2d ___ (Iowa 1998), that no such authority exists. The defendant's sentence on the controlled-substance conviction is affirmed in all respects. AFFIRMED IN PART, SENTENCE VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.