Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Arnzen v. State

Court of Appeals of Iowa

June 7, 2017

JOHN ARNZEN, Applicant-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IOWA, Respondent-Appellee.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica L. Ackley, Judge.

         Applicant appeals from an order granting his application for postconviction relief.

          Alexander D. Smith of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown & Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Benjamin M. Parrott, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.

          MCDONALD, Judge.

         This is the fourth time John Arnzen has filed an appeal arising out of or related to his convictions for indecent contact with a child. In the first appeal, we reversed the dismissal of Arnzen's application for postconviction relief, concluding he had been denied the opportunity to be heard and had received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel. State v. Arnzen (Arnzen I), No. 10-1150, 2011 WL 3480977, at *5 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 10, 2011). In the second appeal, Arnzen unsuccessfully challenged his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 229A (2001). In re Det. of Arnzen (Arnzen II), No. 10-1340, 2012 WL 163239, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2012). In the third appeal, Arnzen challenged the district court's procedure in reviewing his status as a sexually violent predator. See In re Det. of Arnzen (Arnzen III), No. 15-1490, 2016 WL 7403713, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2016). This appeal arises out of Arnzen's application for postconviction relief, which was tried on the merits following remand in Arnzen I. In this case, Arnzen appeals from the district court's order granting his application for postconviction relief.

         To understand the somewhat odd posture of this appeal, it is necessary to understand the context in which it arises. The relevant procedural posture was set forth in the second appeal:

In 2002, Arnzen pled guilty to three counts of indecent contact with a child in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.12(1) and 709.12(4) (2001). Arnzen was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed two years on each count, with two counts to run concurrently and one count to run consecutively to the other counts, for a total effective term of four years. Because Arnzen had previously been convicted of indecent contact with a child in 1986, his four-year sentence was doubled to eight years and he was required to serve eighty-five percent of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole or work release. See Iowa Code § 901A.2(1). January 28, 2009, was the date that Arnzen was expected to be released from incarceration for that sentence. Arnzen was also sentenced to serve an additional two years of parole or work release for each of the three counts. Id. § 901A.2(7).[1]
Prior to Arnzen's release, the department of corrections notified the Attorney General and the multidisciplinary team. Id. § 229A.3(1)(a) (2007). On July 12, 2007, the multidisciplinary team convened and notified the Attorney General of its assessment that Arnzen met the criteria for definition as an SVP. Id. § 229A.3(4).
On December 9, 2008, Arnzen met with the Iowa Board of Parole. The next day, the prosecutor's review committee convened and determined that Arnzen met the definition of an SVP. Id. § 229A.3(5). The Attorney General filed a petition alleging Arnzen to be an SVP on December 17, 2008. Id. § 229A.4(1). The State alleged that Arnzen was an SVP because he had been convicted of a sexually violent offense and he suffers from "a mental abnormality which makes the person likely to engage in predatory acts constituting sexually violent offenses, if not confined in a secure facility." Id. § 229A.2(11).
Despite the two assessments and the petition alleging Arnzen to be an SVP, the parole board issued a work release order on December 30, 2008, granting Arnzen work release status on his anticipated release date. In granting the work release, the parole board determined that there was "a reasonable probability" that Arnzen could "be released without detriment to the community" and was "able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law abiding citizen." Id. § 906.4.
The district court held a probable cause hearing on January 6, 2009. Id. § 229A.5(2). The following day, the district court entered an order finding probable cause existed to believe Arnzen to be an SVP. Id. § 229A.5(4)(b). The district court ordered that upon the date of Arnzen's scheduled release, he should remain in the custody of the department of corrections pending final disposition of the SVP matter. Id. § 229A.5(1). The district court further ordered that Arnzen be transferred to an appropriate secure facility to undergo an evaluation to determine whether he is an SVP. Id. § 229A.5(5).
On June 17, 2009, Arnzen moved to dismiss the SVP petition arguing pro se that the State had filed the petition for civil commitment prematurely because he had not been allowed to complete his work release, and the State violated his plea agreement by ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.