IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 19-1285 Submitted January 20, 2021—Filed June 25, 2021 KENNETH DOSS, Appellant, VS. STATE OF IOWA, Appellee. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County, Richard B. Clogg, Judge. Applicant for postconviction relief seeks further review of the court of appeals’ affirmance of the denial of his application for postconviction relief. DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., and Waterman and McDermott, JJ., joined in full and McDonald and Oxley, JJ., joined in part. Appel, J., filed a special concurrence. McDonald, J. filed a special concurrence, in which Oxley, J., joined. Raya D. Dimitrova (argued) of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke (argued), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Matthew T. Lindholm, West Des Moines, and Mary K. Spellman, West Des Moines, for amicus curie Iowa Association for Justice. Rita Bettis Austin of ACLU of Iowa, Des Moines, for amicus curie American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and John R. Lundquist, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curie lowa Board of Parole. MANSFIELD, Justice. This case involves a convicted sex offender’s challenge to two aspects of his lifetime special parole sentence. First, the offender maintains that the terms and conditions of that parole should have been disclosed to him back in 2007, when he pled guilty. Second, the offender maintains that certain sex-offender-treatment-program (SOTP) parole restrictions as to internet use, dating, contact with minors, church attendance, and independent counseling violate his constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of association. The district court rejected both challenges, and so did the court of appeals. On further review, we also reject these challenges. We conclude that the terms of a parole agreement are collateral consequences that need not—and, as a practical matter, probably could not—be disclosed at the time of the initial guilty plea. Additionally, we conclude that the offender has not shown the SOTP restrictions were unconstitutional as applied to him, i.e., that they resulted in an unlawful parole revocation. See lowa Code § 822.2(1)(e) (2017). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and the decision of the court of appeals. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. In 2007, Doss was charged by amended trial information with one count each of sexual abuse in the third degree, a class ‘C” felony; lascivious acts with a child, a class “C” felony; and indecent contact with a child, an aggravated misdemeanor. Pursuant to a plea agreement, on February 15, 2007, Doss pled guilty to one of the class “C” felonies— lascivious acts with a child. See lowa Code § 709.8 (2005). As part of the agreement, the State dismissed a misdemeanor assault charge in another case and allowed Doss to argue for a suspended sentence. The State 4 reserved the right to argue for the sentence recommended in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals