Opinion
No. 5-495 / 04-1565
Filed August 31, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla, Judge.
Josef Hofmann appeals from the district court's adverse ruling concerning his motion to correct his sentence for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Martha Lucey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, and Harold Denton, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
I. Background Facts Proceedings
On June 15, 1994, Hofmann was sentenced by an Iowa district court to a five-year term of incarceration for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. On July 14, 1994, Hofmann filed a notice of appeal of his conviction and on November 3, 1994, he posted an appeal bond and was released. Hofmann was then arrested by federal authorities and held on federal charges for allegedly being a felon in possession of a firearm. Hofmann was ultimately convicted on that charge, and the federal court sentenced Hofmann on July 31, 1995, to 120 months' incarceration. Hofmann was released from federal custody on March 4, 2004, and placed in custody of Iowa corrections authorities pursuant to a December 2, 2003, detainer.
On July 6, 2004, Hofmann requested the district court enter an order correcting his sentence by giving him credit for time served in federal custody. In an August 26, 2004, ruling the district court denied Hofmann's request. On September 13, 2004, the court entered an enlarged order confirming its decision to deny Hofmann's request. Hofmman appeals.
II. Issue
"I. Whether Josef Hofmann is entitled to credit on his state sentence for the time spent in federal custody?"
III. Standard of Review
This court reviews the district court's application of sentencing statute for errors of law. State v. Edgington, 601 N.W.2d 31, 32 (Iowa 1999).
IV. The Merits
Hofmann acknowledges on the date he was sentenced, June 15, 1994, Iowa Code section 903A.5 (1994) did not provide for credit for time served in federal custody. At that time, Iowa Code section 903A.5 stated "An inmate shall not receive credit upon the inmate's sentence . . . for time served in an institution or jail of another jurisdiction during any period of time the person is receiving credit upon a sentence of that other jurisdiction."
Hofmann nevertheless argues that he is entitled to credit on his state sentence for the time served in federal custody because section 903A.5 was amended on July 1, 2000. That amendment provides in pertinent part, "an inmate may receive credit upon the inmate's sentence while incarcerated in an institution or jail of another jurisdiction during any period of time the person is receiving credit upon a sentence of that other jurisdiction." Hofmann therefore argues he is entitled to credit against his state sentence for time served from July 1, 2000, to March 4, 2004, the date he was released from federal custody.
Iowa Code section 4.13 (1994) states, "If the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment for any offense is reduced by a re-enactment, revision, or amendment of a statute, the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment if not already imposed shall be imposed according to the statute as amended." According to this language, if the sentence is already "imposed," the amendment does not affect the penalty or punishment already imposed. "For the purposes of section 4.13, a penalty is `imposed' at the time of sentencing." State v. Chrisman, 514 N.W.2d 57, 61 (Iowa 1994) (amending of burglary statute making the defendant's actions a Class "D" felony instead of a Class "C" felony before the defendant was sentenced impacts the sentence imposed) (citing State v. Marvin, 307 N.W.2d 10, 12 (Iowa 1981) (amending of a statute after judgment was rendered and while judgment was stayed on appeal does not effect the judgment rendered)).
In Chrisman, the supreme court revised its previous interpretation of Iowa Code section 4.13 to "more nearly reflect the legislature's intent in including an ameliorative amendment clause in section 4.13." Chrisman, 514 N.W.2d at 61. The supreme court held "Section 4.13 should apply whether the reduction is accomplished directly or indirectly" and declined to limit the application of section 4.13 to instances where the legislature had directly changed the punishment for a specified crime. Id. at 62. The supreme court concluded that "the language of the statute shows that section 4.13 was intended to give a defendant who had not yet been sentenced the benefit of a reduced punishment enacted after the commission of the offense." Id. Accordingly, the amendments to the theft and burglary statutes and the supreme court's interpretation of section 4.13 required that Chrisman be sentenced under the reduced penalties contained in the amendments. Id. at 63.
Chrisman is distinguishable. In Chrisman, the defendant's sentence was not imposed before the effective date of the amendment to the theft and burglary statutes. Here the amendments to Iowa Code section 903A.5 were effective after Hofmann's sentence was imposed. The gist of Hofmann's argument is that, even though the amendment occurred after he was sentenced, he is entitled to the benefit of the amendment because he is still being "punished" for the purposes of the savings provision of section 4.13. We disagree. Hofmann's argument is irreconcilable with the supreme court's "not yet have been sentenced" language in Chrisman. The district court's ruling on Hofmann's motion to correct his sentence is therefore is affirmed.