Opinion ID: 4249591
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Interpretation of Section 903B.2.

Text: The parties stipulate Kolzow’s ten-year special sentence is reduced by earned-time credits. The fighting issues are whether his two-year prison time served for his revocation of release should have been reduced by earned-time or jail-time credit. Kolzow contends he is entitled to both earned-time and jail-time credit under the operative statutory language. The State argues the earned-time and jail-time credits do not apply to “revocation of release” periods because these periods are not the “special sentence.” The State argues the credits apply only to hasten the end of the ten-year special sentence without reducing the two-year period Kolzow was incarcerated _________________________________ 60 (codified at Iowa Code §§ 903B.1–.2 (Supp. 2009)) (authorizing the board of parole to “determine whether the person should be released on parole or placed in a work release program”). Because Kolzow began his sentence on parole, the amendments do not change our analysis. 7The decision to revoke an offender’s release is made by an administrative parole judge subject to review by the Iowa Board of Parole. Iowa Code § 908.6. 8 on a revocation of release. The State notes section 903B.2 does not use the phrase “special sentence” in reference to the “revocation of release” periods. Id. § 903B.2 (“The revocation of release shall not be for a period greater than two years upon any first revocation . . . .”). The court of appeals agreed with the State’s position, concluding earned-time credit and jail-time credits did not apply because the revocation of release was not a “special sentence.” We reiterate the principles of statutory interpretation for this special sentencing statute: In interpreting section 903B.2, “our primary goal is to give effect to the intent of the legislature.” In re Detention of Betsworth, 711 N.W.2d 280, 283 (Iowa 2006). “That intent is gleaned from the language of ‘ “the statute as a whole, not from a particular part only.” ’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 630 N.W.2d 778, 781 (Iowa 2001)). “In determining what the legislature intended . . . we are constrained to follow the express terms of the statute.” State v. Byers, 456 N.W.2d 917, 919 (Iowa 1990). “When a statute is plain and its meaning clear, courts are not permitted to search for meaning beyond its express terms.” State v. Chang, 587 N.W.2d 459, 461 (Iowa 1998). In determining plain meaning, “[s]tatutory words are presumed to be used in their ordinary and usual sense and with the meaning commonly attributable to them.” State v. Royer, 632 N.W.2d 905, 908 (Iowa 2001). State v. Anderson, 782 N.W.2d 155, 158 (Iowa 2010). “When construing a statute, we assess the statute as a whole, not just isolated words or phrases.” Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank, 808 N.W.2d 186, 193 (Iowa 2011). “We look to both the language and the purpose behind the statute.” Id. (quoting Iowa Comprehensive Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Bd. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 606 N.W.2d 359, 363 (Iowa 2000)). “If more than one statute relating to the subject matter at issue is relevant to the inquiry, we consider all the 9 statutes together in an effort to harmonize them.” State v. Carpenter, 616 N.W.2d 540, 542 (Iowa 2000). We will address the applicability of earned-time and jail-time credits separately. A. Earned-Time Credit. Kolzow and the State each argue section 903B.2 unambiguously supports their respective position. Kolzow alternatively argues the statutory language is ambiguous and should be construed in his favor. The district court concluded section 903B.2 is ambiguous before awarding Kolzow earned-time and jail-time credit. The court of appeals disagreed and concluded the statute is unambiguous in denying Kolzow both credits. We conclude the operative statutory language unambiguously provides that earned-time credit must be applied to accelerate the end of the ten-year special sentence in IDOC custody, rather than to shorten the revocation of release periods within that special sentence. IDOC retains discretion to incarcerate a parole violator for the maximum revocation of release period so long as the offender is released at the end of his special sentence. 1. Section 903B.2 provides earned-time credit only for the ten-year special sentence. We begin with the plain language of the statute. Section 903B.2 expressly provides that “[a] special sentence shall be considered a category ‘A’ sentence for purposes of calculating earned time.” The provision only uses the phrase “special sentence” in referring to the ten-year IDOC custody period. Section 903B.2 imposes on offenders “a special sentence committing the person into the custody of the director of the Iowa department of corrections for a period of ten years.” The next sentence provides “[t]he special sentence imposed under this section shall commence upon completion of the sentence 10 imposed under any applicable criminal sentencing provisions.” Section 903B.2 does not use the phrase “special sentence” in describing the revocation of release periods: “The revocation of release shall not be for a period greater than two years upon any first revocation, and five years upon any second or subsequent revocation.” Section 903B.2 plainly defines “special sentence” to mean the ten-year IDOC custody period, not the revocation of release of periods. Accordingly, the directive in section 903B.2 that earned-time credit is applied to the “special sentence” refers only to the ten-year IDOC custody period. Our interpretation of the plain language of section 903B.2 is consistent with the purpose of the statute. See State v. Walker, 804 N.W.2d 284, 290 (Iowa 2011) (“ ‘We seek a reasonable interpretation which will best effectuate the purpose of the statute . . . .’ ” (quoting State v. Johnson, 528 N.W.2d 638, 640 (Iowa 1995))). The authorities make clear that the legislature’s objective in enacting the special sentence provisions of section 903B.2 was to further protect the citizens of Iowa from sex crimes. See Wade, 757 N.W.2d at 625–26, 629. We noted the purpose of the special sentence in section 903B.2 is to ensure the sex offender’s activities are supervised and monitored for compliance with the law for an additional ten-year period. Anderson, 782 N.W.2d at 159. “The risk of recidivism posed by sex offenders is ‘frightening and high.’ ” Wade, 757 N.W.2d at 626 (quoting Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 103, 123 S. Ct. 1140, 1153, 155 L. Ed. 2d 164, 183–84 (2003)). In Wade, we concluded the legislature is free to provide for special sentences for sex offenders because they “present a special problem and danger to society,” given the “particularly devastating effects of sexual crimes on victims.” Id. We emphasized the State’s “strong interest in 11 protecting its citizens from sex crimes.” Id. at 629; see also State v. Kingery, 774 N.W.2d 309, 313 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (same). Section 903B.2 provides IDOC discretion to administer a community corrections program in a manner that best protects the public from the risks posed by sex offenders. The revocation of release periods are maximums that vest the Iowa Board of Parole with discretion to parole offenders who do not pose a threat to society. Section 903B.2 expressly incorporates a discretionary community corrections scheme: The person [serving a special sentence] shall be placed on the corrections continuum in chapter 901B, and the terms and conditions of the special sentence, including violations, shall be subject to the same set of procedures set out in chapter 901B, 905, 906, and 908, and rules adopted under those chapters for persons on parole. The revocation of release shall not be for a period greater than two years upon any first revocation, and five years upon any second or subsequent revocation. Section 905.1(2) states community-based correctional programs are programs “including but not limited to an intermediate criminal sanctions program” under the continuum in section 901B.1 that are designed to “supervise and assist individuals . . . convicted of a felony, an aggravated misdemeanor . . . or who are on . . . parole in lieu of or as a result of a sentence.” Section 901B.1(2) states an intermediate criminal sanctions program authorizes IDOC to transfer individuals between continuum levels two through four, ranging from supervised release on parole to short-term incarceration in jail or work-release facilities. Section 901B.1(4)(b) permits IDOC to seek parole revocation pursuant to chapter 908 and impose level five incarceration sanctions. Section 908.5(2) cross-references chapter 903B and mirrors the maximum periods of incarceration of two years upon a first revocation and five years upon a second or subsequent revocation. Applying earned-time 12 credit to shorten the revocation of release period would conflict with the legislature’s grant of statutory discretion to IDOC to incarcerate an offender for the maximum periods prescribed (two years for first revocation; five years for second revocation). Our construction does not undermine the legislative purpose of earned-time credits, which is to encourage prisoners to follow prison rules and participate in rehabilitative programs. See United States v. Newby, 11 F.3d 1143, 1148 (3d Cir. 1993) (“The good time credits system encourages a prisoner to observe prison rules and facilitates rehabilitation by allowing him to serve part of the sentence outside the prison.”); accord State v. Bruns, 691 P.2d 817, 821 (Mont. 1984); Woodring v. Whyte, 242 S.E.2d 238, 245–46 (W. Va. 1978). Parole violators incarcerated on a revocation of release will remain motivated to behave in prison to secure earned-time credit that reduces the length of their ten-year special sentence and because the offender may be paroled from prison at any time during the two-year maximum period. Offenders will also be motivated to behave on the streets knowing a parole violation could put them behind bars for the maximum period for a revocation of release. We find no textual support for Kolzow’s interpretation that the period incarcerated on a revocation of release is a sentence within a sentence to be shortened by earned-time credit. Rather, incarceration on a revocation of release is simply a different placement on the corrections continuum during the same ten-year special sentence. To hold otherwise would undermine IDOC’s ability to protect the public by incarcerating parole violators for up to the statutory maximum periods during the special sentence. 13 2. Kolzow’s statutory construction arguments are unpersuasive. Kolzow raises several arguments for applying earned-time credit to reduce his time incarcerated on a revocation of release. We conclude the court of appeals correctly rejected each argument. Kolzow first notes the statement in section 903B.2 that “[a] special sentence shall be considered a category ‘A’ sentence for purposes of calculating earned time under section 903A.2” is also found in section 903B.1, which applies to lifetime special sentences. He argues the statement in section 903B.1 cannot refer to the lifetime commitment sentence because earned-time credit is inapplicable to a lifetime sentence; therefore, the statement must apply earned-time credit to the revocation of release periods. We acknowledge sections 903B.1 and 903B.2 create a complementary scheme and should be construed uniformly. See Carpenter, 616 N.W.2d at 542 (construing complimentary scheme uniformly). But, we do not believe uniformity requires earnedtime credit to be applied to revocation periods. The court of appeals observed earned-time credit is calculated for lifetime imprisonment sentences in the event the sentence is commuted to a term of years: Kolzow’s appellate brief, however, acknowledges that an offender’s earned-time credit is calculated if the person’s sentence is commuted. Therefore, earned-time credit may be calculated even though a person is subject to a special sentence for the rest of that person’s life under section 903B.1. Cf. Iowa Code § 903A.2(5) (providing that for inmates serving a life sentence under section 902.1, earned time “shall be credited against the inmate’s sentence if the life sentence is commuted to a term of years under section 902.2”). We agree. No specific statute contemplates commutation of a special sentence; however, the governor retains a general power of commutation under article IV, section 16 of the Iowa Constitution. Earned-time credit 14 might also be relevant in the event the lifetime special sentence is altered through subsequent legal proceedings. Accordingly, the legislature could provide for the possibility of earned-time credit under section 903B.1 if the lifetime sentence changes, without the credit applying to shorten the maximum revocation of release periods during the sentence. Kolzow next argues he is entitled to credit because section 903A.2(1) provides all inmates are “eligible to earn a reduction of sentence in the manner provided in this section” except for mandatoryminimum sentences not listed in section 903A.5. He claims that, because his two-year incarceration period is not a mandatory minimum, section 903B.2 falls outside this exception to the general rule allowing earned-time credit. This argument fails because the earned-time credit applies to “sentences,” and his revocation of release was not a sentence. Kolzow’s third argument is that the legislature intended IDOC to treat revocation of release periods like sentences for an aggravated misdemeanor under section 903.1(2), to which earned-time credit applies. He relies on the similarity in the sentencing language in each provision. Compare Iowa Code § 903.1(2) (the penalty for an aggravated misdemeanor “shall be imprisonment not to exceed two years”), with id. § 903B.2 (“[T]he revocation of release shall not be for a period greater than two years . . . .”). The court of appeals succinctly rejected this argument: “This case does not involve an aggravated misdemeanor or a sentence imposed under section 903.1. This code section has no application to the present case.” We agree. Kolzow next argues earned-time credit must be applied to shorten the period incarcerated on a revocation of release in order to avoid the absurd result of the ten-year special sentence ending before a five-year incarceration period could be completed on a second revocation of 15 release. He notes the ten-year special sentence can be served in 4.54 years if the offender obtains earned-time credit. We use the absurd results doctrine sparingly because of the risk of displacing legislative policy. Anderson, 801 N.W.2d at 7–8. We find no absurd result here. Some offenders—those who fail to accrue earned-time credit or who lose credits when they violate rules—will have enough time within their tenyear special sentence to spend five years incarcerated on a second revocation of release. Others will be released within the revocation period upon the end of their special sentence. Finally, Kolzow claims we should apply the rule of lenity to the special sentencing statute and that any ambiguity be construed in his favor. Because we conclude section 903B.2 is unambiguous, the rule of lenity does not apply. See id. at 6 n.3. We hold that IDOC need not apply earned-time credit to shorten the period incarcerated on a revocation of release. IDOC retains discretion to incarcerate a first-time parole violator for up to the two-year maximum period on a revocation of release or five-year period for a second or subsequent violation, so long as the offender is released upon the completion of his special sentence. Earned-time credits shall accrue to advance the end date of the ten-year special sentence. B. Jail-Time Credit. We next address Kolzow’s claim that his two-year period in prison should have been reduced by jail-time credit for the five and one-half months he spent in detention awaiting his parolerevocation hearing. The jail-credit statute is entitled “Time to be served– credit” and provides: An inmate shall be deemed to be serving the sentence from the day on which the inmate is received into the institution. If an inmate was confined to a county jail, municipal holding facility, or other correctional or mental facility at any time 16 prior to sentencing, or after sentencing but prior to the case having been decided on appeal, because of failure to furnish bail or because of being charged with a nonbailable offense, the inmate shall be given credit for the days already served upon the term of the sentence. Iowa Code § 903A.5. The defendant’s jail time must be “on account of the offense for which the defendant is convicted.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.26(1)(f); accord Walton v. State, 407 N.W.2d 588, 590–91 (Iowa 1987). Kolzow meets these requirements for jail-time credit. Kolzow was detained in jail or a work-release facility from July 28, 2009, until January 11, 2010, awaiting his parole-revocation hearing. He was not provided bail. The administrative parole judge ruled he violated his parole and ordered him to prison “on account” of the parole violation, “to serve a period not greater than two years as required by Code section 903B.2.” The State asserts Kolzow is not entitled to jail-time credit to reduce his prison time for a revocation of release because section 903A.5 does not expressly apply to detention pending parole-revocation or revocationof-release hearings, only “sentencing.” We have concluded that the revocation of release is not the “special sentence” to which earned-time credit applies. Moreover, sections 903A.5 and 903B.2 do not crossreference each other. The State agrees that Kolzow’s time in jail or work release counts day for day against his ten-year special sentence, but argues his prehearing detention does not count against the maximum period incarcerated for the revocation of release. The problem with the State’s position is that it permits IDOC to incarcerate offenders for a period greater than the two-year maximum for a first violation in section 903B.2. Section 903B.2 unambiguously states the offender’s revocation of release “shall not be for a period greater than two years upon any first revocation, and five years upon any second or 17 subsequent revocation.” An offender’s release is revoked when he is detained in a jail or work-release facility awaiting his hearing. Cf. State v. Rodenburg, 562 N.W.2d 186, 189 (Iowa 1997) (permitting jail-time credit “for time served in state correctional institutions or detention facilities” awaiting sentencing hearing). Here, IDOC did not apply jailtime credit to Kolzow’s revocation of release period, resulting in his incarceration longer than the two-year maximum allowed by section 903B.2 for a first violation. We cannot construe the plain statutory language in a manner that permits express maximum periods of incarceration to be exceeded. We hold an offender serving a special sentence under section 903B.2 is entitled to jail-time credit against the maximum periods for revocation of release for each day he is detained in jail or a work-release facility awaiting his parole-revocation hearing. Each day spent in such detention also counts as a day serving the ten-year special sentence.