Court Opinion

ID: 9781062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:06:12.57687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:10:04.236041
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                    No. 22-2014
                               Filed August 30, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KEVIN KEITH ORRIS,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal    from     the   Iowa   District   Court   for   Washington   County,

Michael Schilling, Judge.

      A defendant appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty pleas

to multiple counts of incest. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND

REMANDED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                         2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

       Kevin Orris appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to

six counts of incest of a dependent adult, a class D felony in violation of Iowa Code

sections 726.2, 235B.2(4), 692A.102(1)(b)(17), and 903B.2 (2021).              Orris

contends the district court abused its sentencing discretion and committed error

that should invalidate his sentence. Finding error in the court’s instruction to

complete sex-offender treatment, we vacate only that portion of the order and

affirm the remaining sentence.

   I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

       In September 2021, the State filed criminal complaints against Orris for

incest and third-degree sexual abuse involving his adopted daughter, H.O., who is

a dependent adult. Law enforcement interviewed Orris prior to his arrest, and an

excerpt of the video recording of this interview was admitted during his sentencing

hearing as Exhibit 8. In this recorded interview, Orris denied that he paid his

daughter twenty dollars to have sex with him. He admitted that he took his

daughter to have abortions on two occasions and agreed he was likely the father

in both instances. He acknowledged that he had had sex with her “quite a few

times” because “she came to [him] all the time.” He explained that the sexual

relationship with his daughter began, in part, because he was no longer attracted

to his wife, who had a stroke years ago and wears adult diapers. He said that his

wife’s condition “turned [him] off.” He also admitted that he knew what he was

doing was wrong and tried to cut back on the sexual activity but that his daughter

had come to him almost every day asking for sex during the last year.
                                           3

       In September 2022, Orris pled guilty to six counts of incest in exchange for

the State dismissing the sexual-abuse charges. To establish a factual basis for

his guilty plea, Orris admitted to performing a sex act with H.O. in each year from

2016 to 2021 while knowing that he is related to H.O. In December, the court

sentenced Orris to a five-year indeterminate term of incarceration for each of the

six incest convictions and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. The court

also ordered Orris to register as a sex offender and specifically ordered that Orris

“shall participate in and successfully complete all requirements of the Sex Offender

Treatment Program.” Orris filed a timely notice of appeal.

   II. Review.

       While the right of appeal is limited for convictions reached pursuant to a

plea agreement, there is good cause for appeal when the challenge, as here, is to

the sentence rather than the guilty plea. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3); State v.

Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Iowa 2021). We review the sentencing order in a

criminal case for correction of errors at law. State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103

(Iowa 2020). “We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse

of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” Id. (citation omitted).

   III. Discussion.

       Orris challenges three elements of his sentencing: (1) the consideration of

Exhibit 8, (2) the lack of consideration for rehabilitation in crafting a sentence, and

(3) the requirement to complete sex-offender treatment while incarcerated.

   A. Video Exhibit of Police Interview.

       Orris argues the district court erred by admitting and relying upon the video

excerpt of his police interview (Exhibit 8). He contends that Exhibit 8 was irrelevant
                                          4

to sentencing because it contains references to conduct to which Orris did not

admit when he pled guilty to the incest charges, and therefore, these references

amount to unproven or unadmitted conduct that cannot be properly considered for

sentencing. However, Iowa Code section 901.2 directs that “the court shall receive

from the state, from the judicial district department of correctional services, and

from the defendant any information which may be offered which is relevant to the

question of sentencing.” In exercising its sentencing discretion, “the court may

consider a variety of circumstances, including the nature of the offense and

attending circumstances, as well as the defendant’s age, character, propensities

and chances of reform.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 10 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

As the State points out, Orris’s admissions within the exhibit were relevant because

they inform the circumstances and nature of the crime he pled guilty to and reveal

that Orris committed his crimes with the knowledge they were wrong. Therefore,

this material satisfies the threshold for relevance to the court’s task of reaching a

sentence that fits Orris and his crime.

       Even if relevant, the material still must be appropriate for consideration. “A

court may not consider an unproven or unprosecuted offense when sentencing a

defendant unless (1) the facts before the court show the accused committed the

offense, or (2) the defendant admits it.” State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678

(Iowa 1998). But Orris’s admissions on the video exhibit were made in relation to

the offenses actually charged and were in fact admitted by him voluntarily.1

1 The State argues the content of Exhibit 8 was also appropriate for the court’s

consideration because it was included in the minutes of testimony. However, “[t]he
sentencing court should only consider those facts contained in the minutes that
are admitted to or otherwise established as true.” State v. Chapman, 944 N.W.2d
                                          5

Moreover, the court did not make any reference on the record or in the written

order that would suggest it even considered the conduct described in the video

exhibit when crafting its sentence. See State v. Ashley, 462 N.W.2d 279, 282

(Iowa 1990) (“In order to overcome the presumption of the proper exercise of this

discretion, there must be an affirmative showing that the trial judge relied on the

uncharged offenses.”). We find the court did not err in admitting the exhibit and

affirm its order in this respect.

   B. Sentencing Discretion.

       Orris argues the district court abused its discretion by focusing on retribution

and deterrence rather than considering a sentence that would allow for Orris’s

rehabilitation. The court listed several factors that led it to impose consecutive

prison sentences rather than concurrent terms or a suspended sentence. Several

cited factors—such as being the victim’s father and needing to protect her, as well

as sending a message to the community—could be classified under the retributive

and deterrent theories of punishment. However, the court also acknowledged

circumstances related to rehabilitation, such as favorable comments from

community members and the low likelihood of recidivism. Moreover, “the failure

to acknowledge a particular sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean

it was not considered.” Boltz, 542 N.W.2d at 11. “Instead, we review a sentence

for an abuse of discretion based on the entire record, and look to see if the reasons

articulated by the trial court are sufficient to enable us to determine if an abuse of

864, 872 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). Therefore, it is not the existence in the
minutes but Orris’s admission to the conduct that makes it eligible for
consideration.
                                         6

discretion occurred.” Id. “The sentencing court has broad discretion to impose the

sentence it determines is best suited to rehabilitate a defendant and protect

society.” State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355 (Iowa 2022). On this record,

we are satisfied the district court considered appropriate sentencing factors and

provided sufficient reasons for imposing a term of incarceration. The sentence

cannot be considered unreasonable or based upon untenable grounds in light of

the appropriate standards acknowledged and considered by the district court.

Because we find no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentence imposed.

   C. Sex-Offender Treatment.

      Orris argues the court lacked authority to order him to complete

sex-offender treatment while incarcerated. The State concedes this point and

acknowledges the case should be remanded for the limited purpose of correcting

this error. We agree that the court lacked statutory authority to enter this order,

and therefore, it constitutes an illegal sentence. See State v. Smith, No. 18-2248,

2021 WL 1400772, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021). Accordingly, we vacate

this portion of the sentencing order but note that the department of corrections may

still require Orris to complete sex-offender treatment. See Iowa Code §§ 903A.2,

.4; Dykstra v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 783 N.W.2d 473, 478–79 (Iowa 2010).

   IV. Disposition.

      We vacate the portion of Orris’s sentence requiring him to complete sex-

offender treatment while incarcerated and remand for entry of a corrected

sentencing order that removes that requirement. We affirm Orris’s sentence in all

other respects.

      AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.