IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 18–0477 Filed June 28, 2019 JULIO BONILLA, Appellant, vs. IOWA BOARD OF PAROLE, Appellee. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Douglas F. Staskal, Judge. Julio Bonilla appeals dismissal of his petition for judicial review. AFFIRMED. Rita Bettis Austen of ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Des Moines, Steven Macpherson Watt of ACLU Foundation, New York, New York, Angela L. Campbell of Dickey & Campbell Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, and Gordon E. Allen, Johnston, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John R. Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Brent Michael Pattison of Drake Legal Clinic, Des Moines, Marsha L. Levick of Juvenile Law Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Benjamin G. Bradshaw, Kimberly Cullen, and Kendall N. Collins of 2 O’Melveny & Myers, LLP, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae Juvenile Law Center. John S. Allen and Bram T.B. Elias of University of Iowa College of Law Clinical Law Programs, Iowa City, and Sarah French Russell of Quinnipiac University School of Law Legal Clinic, Hamden, Connecticut, for amici curiae Juvenile Sentencing Project and Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth. 3 APPEL, Justice. In this case, Julio Bonilla, the petitioner, convicted of kidnapping for an act committed when he was sixteen years old, brought a petition for judicial review in district court pursuant to the Iowa Administrative Procedures Act, Iowa Code section 17A.19 (2016), challenging the manner in which the Iowa Parole Board (Board) considers whether persons convicted of offenses while a juvenile should be granted parole. Specifically, Bonilla sought a declaratory judgment that a variety of substantive and procedural rights are required when a juvenile offender is considered for parole under article I, sections 9 (due process), 10 (right to counsel), and 17 (cruel and unusual punishment) of the Iowa Constitution and the Eighth Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) and the Fourteenth Amendment (due process) to the Federal Constitution. In addition, Bonilla sought an order remanding the matter back to the Board and requiring it to provide him with the procedural rights requested in his petition. Bonilla further sought attorney fees and costs. The Board moved to dismiss the petition. The district court denied the motion to dismiss. The district court later proceeded to rule in favor of the Board on the merits. Bonilla appeals. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm. I. Factual and Procedural Background. In 2005, Bonilla was convicted of kidnapping in the first degree. His criminal conviction arose from a New Year’s Eve abduction of a pregnant sixteen-year-old girl who was grabbed off the street while she walked home, thrown into Bonilla’s vehicle, and, over a four-hour period, hit, slapped, hair-pulled, bitten on the face and neck, and raped. After four or five hours, the victim was ultimately thrown out of the vehicle without her shoes or underwear, with the shout “Happy New Year.” 4 Bonilla was sixteen years old when he committed the crime. He was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP). ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals