IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1541
Filed August 1, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOSEPH EUGENE SHADE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano
(waiver/plea) and Carla T. Schemmel (sentencing), Judges.
Defendant challenges his sentence for robbery in the first degree.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Bradley M. Bender, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Joseph Shade was convicted of robbery in the first degree, in violation of
Iowa Code section 711.2 (2016). At the time of the offense, Shade was sixteen
years old. The district court sentenced Shade to an indeterminate term of
incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years with no mandatory minimum. In this
appeal, Shade challenges his sentence. He contends he was entitled to a Miller
hearing at the time of sentencing. See State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 402 n.8
(Iowa 2014); State v. Ragland, 836 N.W.2d 107, 115 n.6 (Iowa 2013) (listing
required sentencing factors identified in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 477
(2012)). He also contends his counsel provided constitutionally-deficient
representation at the time of sentencing. Finally, he contends the district court
imposed an illegal surcharge.
By way of background, in December 2016, Shade accompanied another
man to meet Jessica Valles Rivera at a local elementary school for the purported
purpose of purchasing a smart phone from Rivera. According to Shade, he served
as a look out while the other man approached the car, pulled out a handgun, and
pointed it at Rivera and her husband while demanding money. The man then fled
with a wallet, forty dollars, and the phone. Rivera’s children were in the car at the
time of the robbery. According to the victim, Shade was the person who wielded
the gun.
In January 2017, Shade was charged with the robbery of Rivera and her
husband as well as two additional armed robberies in unrelated incidents. At the
time Shade was charged with the Rivera robbery, he was already subject to a
3
juvenile-court consent decree for the armed robbery of a taxi driver in a different
incident. As part of a plea agreement, Shade pleaded guilty to one count of
robbery in the first degree arising out of the robbery of Rivera, and the State agreed
to dismiss the other two counts. The parties were free to argue at the time of
sentencing. After hearing argument and recommendations from both sides, the
district court sentenced Shade to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to
exceed twenty-five years without any mandatory minimum. The court reasoned,
For the sentence consideration, the Court determines that the
sentence set forth herein will provide maximum opportunity for
rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the community from
further offenses.
Pursuant to the Iowa Code, the Court has considered the
following factors: The defendant’s age, the defendant’s prior record
of convictions and deferment of judgments, if any, the defendant’s
family circumstances, the nature of the offense committed.
....
. . . I want you know this is a difficult case. You are young, but
you have been committing violent crimes.
I do, however, consider your safety, and I am not convinced
that you would be any safer in the public than you would be in prison,
number one; number two, there are programs available in prison for
you to take advantage of, but that’s up to you. And if you don’t take
advantage of them, you may find yourself repeating and repeating in
the system.
You are a bright young man. You had troubles in your life,
and you went down the wrong way. This is not the end. It will be
difficult. You’re going to have to be a man. I hope you can be
successful in prison and get out and become a good and productive
citizen of this country. And I do sincerely wish you the best.
In his first challenge to his sentence, Shade contends the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing him without holding a Miller hearing or the
substantial equivalent of a Miller hearing. “We review for an ‘abuse of discretion,’
our most deferential standard, ‘if the sentence is within the statutory limits.’ We
review for ‘correction of errors at law,’ an intermediate standard, ‘when the
4
defendant challenges the legality of a sentence on nonconstitutional grounds.’”
State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017) (quoting State v. Seats, 865
N.W.2d 545, 552–53 (Iowa 2015)). “A discretionary sentencing ruling . . . may be
[an abuse of discretion] if a sentencing court fails to consider a relevant factor that
should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or
irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but nevertheless commits a
clear error of judgment by arriving at a sentence that lies outside the limited range
of choice dictated by the facts of the case.” Id. at 138 (second alteration in original)
(quoting People v. Hyatt, 891 N.W.2d 549, 576 (Mich. 2016)). Still, sentences
within statutory limits are “cloaked with a strong presumption in [their] favor.” See
State v. Washington, 832 N.W.2d 650, 660 (Iowa 2013) (quoting State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002)).
We reject Shade’s contention that the district court was required to conduct
a Miller hearing or the substantial equivalent of Miller hearing. Iowa Code section
907.5 sets forth a number of statutory sentencing considerations. These include
“the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age,
character, propensities, and chances of his reform.” See State v. Evans, 672
N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003) (citing State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa
1999)). In addition, our supreme court has created a separate sentencing
procedure for cases involving juvenile offenders subject to minimum sentences. In
those cases, the district court must conduct a Miller hearing in which it considers
the chronological age of the youth and features of youth, the family and home
environment, the circumstances of the offense, the incompetencies associated
5
with youth, and the possibility of rehabilitation. See Lyle, 854 N.W.2d at 402 n.8;
Ragland, 836 N.W.2d at 115 n.6 (Iowa 2013) (listing required sentencing factors
identified in Miller, 567 U.S. at 477). The supreme court has explicitly declined to
expand these hearing requirements to cases not involving minimum sentences.
See State v. Propps, 897 N.W.2d 91, 101 (Iowa 2017). The supreme court
reasoned the rationale underlying Miller, Ragland, Lyle, and their progeny is not
implicated where the defendant is not subject to a minimum sentence. See id.
(“When a one-size-fits-all mandatory minimum is imposed, an arbitrary amount of
time spent in prison dictates when a juvenile will be released. In contrast, when
an indeterminate sentence is given that contains no mandatory minimum sentence
and allows a juvenile to be immediately eligible for parole, the juvenile defendant’s
behavior in prison dictates when parole will be available—with the potential for
immediate parole if rehabilitation, maturity, and reform have been demonstrated.”
(citations omitted)). More recently, the supreme court concluded the district court
was not required to conduct a Miller hearing where the juvenile defendant could
have been subject to a minimum sentence but where the district court declined to
impose a minimum sentence. See State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153, 173 (Iowa
2018) (holding the district court was not required to conduct a Miller hearing where
the defendant was subject to a minimum sentence but the district court declined to
consider imposing the same). Here, the district court declined to impose a
minimum sentence and instead made the defendant immediately eligible for
parole. Under Propps and Crooks, a Miller hearing or the substantial equivalent
of a Miller hearing was not required. See Propps, 897 N.W.2d at 104 (“[W]e decline
6
to extend the requirement of a Miller individualized sentencing hearing to juvenile
defendants who are not subject to a mandatory minimum period of incarceration.”);
Crooks, 911 N.W.2d at 173.
In his next claim, Shade alleges his sentencing counsel provided
constitutionally-deficient representation at the time of sentencing. We review
ineffective-assistance claims de novo. State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 133 (Iowa
2006). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must
show “(1) his trial counsel failed to perform an essential duty, and (2) this failure
resulted in prejudice.” Id. (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687–88
(1984)). The defendant must prove both elements by a preponderance of the
evidence. See State v. Madsen, 813 N.W.2d 714, 723 (Iowa 2012). “Prejudice
exists if ‘there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional
errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.’” Id. at 727 (quoting
State v. Graves, 668 N.W.2d 860, 882 (Iowa 2003)).
Shade has not proved his sentencing counsel’s performance was so
deficient that it breached an essential duty. First, Shade contends his counsel
should have called witnesses at sentencing. However, Shade does not identify
the witnesses or the substance of their testimony. Shade’s second claim is that
counsel was not zealous because he failed to argue the Lyle/Miller factors at
sentencing. As noted above, Shade was not entitled to a Miller hearing. Thus, his
counsel could not have breached a duty in failing to argue the factors. Beyond
that consideration, however, counsel strongly argued Shade’s youth was a
mitigating factor. Counsel repeatedly referenced Shade’s age, youth, potential for
7
rehabilitation, and “the lack of the development in the mind of a young man at this
age and their impulsive behavior.” Finally, Shade contends his counsel advocated
for an illegal sentence. Counsel sought a placement for Shade in Fort Des Moines,
a residential facility, but Shade did not qualify for the facility because of his age.
Shade argues, “By requesting imposition of placement at the residential treatment
facility, trial counsel was essentially requesting the district court impose an illegal
sentence.” However, Shade misrepresents his counsel’s position. Shade’s
counsel stated his position that Shade be held in custody until the time that he
qualified for that program. Shade’s counsel also identified a different residential
facility for Shade. There was no breach of duty for any of these claims.
In addition, we conclude Shade failed to prove prejudice. Shade does not
even allege he suffered Strickland prejudice. Rather, he contends his counsel’s
performance constituted structural error. “Structural errors are not merely errors
in a legal proceeding, but errors ‘affecting the framework within which the trial
proceeds.’” Lado v. State, 804 N.W.2d 248, 252 (Iowa 2011) (quoting Arizona v.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 310 (1991)).
We have recognized structural error occurs when: (1) counsel is
completely denied, actually or constructively, at a crucial stage of the
proceeding; (2) where counsel does not place the prosecution’s case
against meaningful adversarial testing; or (3) where surrounding
circumstances justify a presumption of ineffectiveness, such as
where counsel has an actual conflict of interest in jointly representing
multiple defendants.
Id. (citing State v. Feregrino, 756 N.W.2d 700, 707 (Iowa 2008)).
Shade asserts without explanation “counsel’s failure to present mitigating
evidence bearing on Shade’s youth and for counsel arguing for a sentence
8
recommendation that was not available [sic] should be considered structural error.”
We disagree. Counsel advocated for Shade at sentencing, even arguing four of
the five Miller factors, although not referring to them as such. The record also
reflects counsel made arguments in favor of an alternate residential facility or a
period of custody until Shade met the age qualifications at Fort Des Moines. In
sum, Shade’s counsel made an impassioned argument for leniency that ultimately
failed. Shade has failed to make a showing of structural error. See Harkless v.
State, No. 16-2082, 2017 WL 6513966, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Dec. 20, 2017) (“We
are unable to find counsel’s performance so objectively lacking as to cause a
structural error.”); Rickey v. State, No. 16-1212, 2017 WL 2461560, at *3 (Iowa Ct.
App. June 7, 2017) (“Unlike Lado, in which counsel took no action at all, Rickey
was not completely denied counsel, actually or constructively, at any point in the
proceeding.”); Allard v. State, No. 11-1641, 2013 WL 1227352, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App.
Mar. 27, 2013) (“Perhaps Allard would have liked a more zealous advocate, but he
was not constructively without counsel.”).
Finally, Shade contends the district court imposed an illegal sentence when
it ordered Shade to pay the law-enforcement-initiative surcharge. The State
concedes this point. We agree with Shade and the State that the law-enforcement-
initiative surcharge is not authorized by statute for the specified offense. See Iowa
Code § 911.3. We vacate the law-enforcement surcharge and remand for entry of
a corrected sentencing order. See State v. Phipps, No. 17-0544, 2018 WL 540438,
9
at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2018) (remanding for entry of a corrected sentencing
order).1
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS.
1
As we noted in State v. McLachlan,
[s]ome may question why a revised sentencing order is necessary if an
appellate court has finally resolved the issue. We recognize that final
sentencing orders are relied upon by many people, agencies, and
organizations, including the Iowa Department of Corrections, the Iowa
Board of Parole, probation and parole personnel, law enforcement
agencies, other government agencies, the business community, and
others. It is unrealistic and administratively unwieldy for a copy of an
appellate opinion to be sent to or appended to any prior sentencing order
that was altered by an appellate opinion. A revised sentencing order
provides a final, complete memorialization of the sentence imposed and
that must be enforced.
880 N.W.2d 513, 517 n.5 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016), as corrected May 10, 2016.