Opinion
23-0563
03-27-2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. QUAYSEAN PURDY, Defendant-Appellant
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Jeffrey D. Bert, Judge.
Quaysean Purdy appeals the fines imposed following his convictions for third-degree sexual abuse and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Buller, JJ.
AHLERS, JUDGE.
A jury found Quaysean Purdy guilty of third-degree sexual abuse, a class "C" felony, and assault with intent to inflict sexual abuse, an aggravated misdemeanor, for acts he perpetrated against the fourteen-year-old daughter of his then-paramour. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the district court imposed concurrent terms of incarceration for each charge and imposed a $1370 fine (plus a 15% crime services surcharge and a $90 sexual abuse surcharge) for the felony and a $855 fine (plus a 15% crime services surcharge) for the aggravated misdemeanor. Purdy appeals. He claims the district court abused its discretion when it imposed the fines because it mistakenly believed it was imposing the statutory minimum fines when it actually imposed fines greater than the statutory minimum for each charge.
The written sentencing order conflicted with the court's oral pronouncement at sentencing and imposed a $1025 fine on the aggravated misdemeanor. When the oral pronouncement and written judgment conflict, the oral pronouncement controls. See State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525, 528 (Iowa 1995).
Because the district court imposed a sentence within the statutory limits, we review the sentence for abuse of discretion. State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372, 385 (Iowa 2020). "An abuse of discretion is rarely found when [the] sentence is imposed within the statutory maximum unless (1) the trial court fails to exercise its discretion or (2) the trial court considers inappropriate matters in determining what sentence to impose." State v. Pappas, 337 N.W.2d 490, 494 (Iowa 1983) (internal citations omitted). The defendant has the burden to show the court abused its discretion. State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153, 171 (Iowa 2018).
At the time Purdy committed the charged offenses in June 2020, the fine associated with a class "C" felony ranged from $1000 to $10,000. Iowa Code § 902.9(1)(d) (2020). The fine associated with an aggravated misdemeanor ranged from $625 to $6250. Id. § 903.1(2). However, by the time of sentencing in March 2023, fines had increased to a range of $1370 to $13,660 for a class "C" felony and $855 to $8540 for an aggravated misdemeanor. Id. §§ 902.9(1)(d), 903.1(2) (2023). Purdy contends that the parties and the court mistakenly applied the updated statutory fines instead of considering the fines as they stood at the time of the offenses. See id. § 4.13(1)(c) ("The . . . amendment . . . of a statute does not affect . . . any . . . punishment incurred in respect to the statute, prior to the amendment ...."); State v. Marx, 205 N.W. 518, 519 (Iowa 1925) (recognizing sentencing should comport with the relevant statutes effective at the time of the offense). He reasons that misunderstanding resulted in the district court failing to exercise its discretion.
At the sentencing hearing, the State requested Purdy "be assessed a fine of . . . $1375 plus 15% and any additional court costs" as to the felony and "$855 plus 15% surcharge and any additional court costs" as to the aggravated misdemeanor. Defense counsel responded, "I have no objection to the fine, although I think the State is off by $5. I think the minimum fine is $1370, but I could[n't] care less about $5 at this point. We have no objection to the minimum fine in the aggravated misdemeanor." When the court pronounced the sentences for the two charges and set the amount of the fine for each, it said nothing about intending to set the fines at the statutory minimum. From this record, we infer that defense counsel misunderstood the relevant minimum fines for each count. But nothing in the record establishes that the district court was also confused as to the statutory minimum fines.
In the absence of evidence establishing that the district court did not know the relevant minimum fines for each count, we will not make such an assumption, as the burden is on Purdy to establish that the court abused its discretion by failing to exercise its discretion. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d at 171 (placing the burden on the defendant to establish abuse of discretion). Nothing in the record establishes that the district court failed to exercise its discretion when setting the amount for the fines. And the assessed fines fall within the relevant statutory ranges. So we conclude Purdy has failed to meet his burden to establish that the district court abused its discretion by failing to exercise its discretion when setting the fine on either count. As this is the only claim of sentencing error urged by Purdy, his claim fails.
With Purdy's claim on appeal resolved, we turn to the State's request that we correct an error in the written sentencing order that incorrectly sentenced Purdy to a five-year term of incarceration on the aggravated misdemeanor. This is an illegal sentence because the maximum term of incarceration for an aggravated misdemeanor is two years. Iowa Code § 903.1(2) (2020). The district court already filed an order correcting this error as well as correcting the fine imposed on the aggravated misdemeanor to reflect the oral pronouncement of the fine at sentencing. But Purdy had already filed his notice of appeal by that time, generally divesting the district court of jurisdiction. See State v. Mallett, 677 N.W.2d 775, 776 (Iowa 2004) ("Generally, an appeal divests a district court of jurisdiction."). Purdy does not object to our court addressing the fine- or incarceration-related sentencing issues on appeal. So we affirm Purdy's sentence, but we remand to the district court to enter a corrected sentencing order imposing a $855 fine on the aggravated misdemeanor charge to match the oral pronouncement and committing Purdy to the custody of the Iowa Department of Corrections for an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed two years on that charge. By this remand, we mean no criticism of the district court. The court quickly recognized its mistake and tried to correct it, but it was powerless to do so after having lost jurisdiction due to the filing of notice of appeal.
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF CORRECTED SENTENCING ORDER.