IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1313
Filed June 25, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JASON CECAK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James A.
McGlynn, Judge.
Jason Cecak appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
application to establish he was wrongfully imprisoned. AFFIRMED.
Matt J. Reilly of Eells & Trevonold Law Offices, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and William A. Hill, Assistant Attorney
General, Special Litigation Division, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
Jason Cecak appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
application to establish he was wrongfully imprisoned. Having pled guilty to the
offense for which he was charged, Cecak does not meet the criterion set forth in
Iowa Code section 663A.1(1)(b) (2013), and he therefore does not qualify as a
“wrongfully imprisoned person” under the statute. Accordingly, we affirm the
district court’s dismissal of Cecak’s application.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On November 27, 2000, Cecak was charged by trial information with two
counts: (I) third-degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1,
709.4(2)(c)(4), and 702.17 (1999), and (II) conduct with a minor, in violation of
section 709.14. The facts involved consensual sex acts between Cecak, then
age nineteen, and a victim who was then fourteen-years-and-eight-months old.
The State and Cecak reached a plea agreement whereby Cecak would
plead guilty in count I to the reduced crime of lascivious acts with a child, in
violation of section 709.8(1)(2), and the State would dismiss count II. On April
11, 2001, an amended and substituted information was filed amending count I to
charge Cecak with lascivious acts with a child as set forth in the agreement.
Cecak’s guilty plea was accepted by the court on July 2, 2001. Cecak was
adjudged guilty of the lascivious-acts-with-a-child charge and sentenced on
September 10, 2001. Count II was dismissed.
After his second probation violation, Cecak was imprisoned. He was later
paroled and his sentence discharged.
3
After Cecak contacted the State in early 2012, the State filed a motion to
vacate judgment and dismiss count I. The State’s motion stated the victim’s age
was fourteen years and eight months at the time of the crime, and it noted Iowa
Code section 702.5 defined “child” for the purposes of chapter 709 sex crimes to
be “any person under the age of fourteen years.” The State’s motion alleged
there was not a factual basis for Cecak’s 2001 guilty plea to the crime of
lascivious acts with a child, and it requested his guilty plea and sentence be set
aside. The district court later vacated and dismissed count I “for the reasons
stated in the State’s motion.”
On June 20, 2013, Cecak filed an application for wrongful imprisonment
under Iowa Code section 663A.1 (2013).1 The State moved to dismiss Cecak’s
application asserting he was disqualified from being considered a “wrongfully
imprisoned person” under section 663A.1(1)(b) because he pled guilty to the
underlying offense. After a hearing, the district court dismissed Cecak’s
application, agreeing Cecak did not meet the criterion set forth in section
663A.1(1)(b).
Cecak now appeals.
1
The Iowa wrongful imprisonment statute creates a cause of action for wrongful
imprisonment that permits a person to commence an action for damages under the State
Tort Claims Act. See generally Iowa Code ch. 663A. Like other persons permitted to
bring a tort action against the state, a wrongfully imprisoned person is given the right to
sue the state in district court for damages after first presenting the claim to the State
Appeals Board. See id. §§ 669.3-.5. However, a wrongfully imprisoned person must
first clear a hurdle not set for other state tort claimants. See State v. McCoy, 742
N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 2007). A wrongfully imprisoned person may not proceed with a
lawsuit under the State Tort Claims Act until the district court has conducted a predicate
review and assessment of the claim and found the person is entitled to commence a civil
action based on two preliminary findings. See State v. Dohlman, 725 N.W.2d 428, 430-
31 (Iowa 2006). This additional procedure permits the district court to serve as a
gatekeeper of such claims to insure only meritorious claims for damages will be filed with
the State Appeals Board. McCoy, 742 N.W.2d at 596.
4
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review a district court’s ruling on wrongful imprisonment claims for
errors at law. Smith v. State, 845 N.W.2d 51, 54 (Iowa 2014). The district court’s
findings of fact will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence. Id.
III. Discussion.
“The legislature created a statutory cause of action for wrongful
imprisonment.” See id. (citing Iowa Code § 663A.1). We must therefore apply
the statute to the facts in order to determine if Cecak is entitled to compensation.
See Smith, 845 N.W.2d at 55. Consequently, we must first determine if Cecak
meets the definition of a wrongfully imprisoned person defined in section
663A.1(1). Id. If so, we next determine whether Cecak did not commit the
offense or the offense was not committed by any person. See id. (citing Iowa
Code § 663A.1(2)).
To qualify as a wrongfully imprisoned person, section 663A.1(1) states the
applicant must meet “all of the following” criteria, including that the applicant “did
not plead guilty to the public offense charged, or to any lesser included offense,
but was convicted by the court or by a jury of an offense classified as an
aggravated misdemeanor or felony.” See Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)(b). The court
record is examined to determine if the applicant meets each criterion. Smith, 845
N.W.2d at 55. If an applicant does not meet any one of the five criteria, the
applicant does not meet the statutory definition of a “wrongfully imprisoned
person,” and thus does not meet the first step of the analysis. See id. If the first
step is not met, the court need not proceed to the second step of analysis. Id.
(Holding “[o]nce the court determines the applicant is a wrongfully imprisoned
5
person,” then the court makes a determination under the second step (emphasis
added)).
Here, substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Cecak
does not meet the statutory definition of a “wrongfully imprisoned person.” The
court file establishes an amended information was filed charging Cecak with
lascivious acts with a child in violation of section 709.8(1)(2). Cecak pled guilty
to that charge. Consequently, Cecak has failed to establish he “did not plead
guilty to the public offense charged, or to any lesser included offense, but was
convicted by the court or by a jury of an offense classified as an aggravated
misdemeanor or felony.” See Iowa Code § 663A.1(1)(b). Having failed to
establish he was a “wrongfully imprisoned person,” his application is fatally
flawed. We therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Cecak’s application
for wrongful imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.