CourtListener 4967485•State of Iowa v. Domonique Deshawn Parrow Sr.
State of Iowa v. Domonique Deshawn Parrow Sr.
CourtListener 4967485Iowactapp18.08.2021
Gesamter Gesetzestext
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-1626
Filed August 18, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DOMONIQUE DESHAWN PARROW SR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea,
Judge.
Domonique Parrow Sr. appeals the sentence imposed following convictions
for guilty of driving while barred and driving while suspended. SENTENCE
VACATED AND REMANDED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
The district court found Domonique Parrow Sr. guilty of driving while barred
and driving while suspended. See Iowa Code §§ 321.561, 321J.21 (2018). The
court sentenced Parrow to a prison term “not to exceed two years” on the driving-
while-barred count and a one-year jail term on the driving-while-suspended count.
The court suspended the sentences and placed Parrow on probation. In a case
that is not the subject of this appeal, Parrow also was committed to the Iowa
Department of Corrections for a period not exceeding five years on a conviction of
operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI), third or subsequent offense.
Parrow appealed.
Parrow contends “the District Court imposed an illegal sentence” in
sentencing him “to both jail and prison when the total concurrent sentence
amounted to more than one year and he was presently committed to the
Department of Corrections” on the OWI conviction. He asks us to vacate the
sentencing order “to the extent it specifies a jail sentence.” Statute and precedent
require that result.
Iowa Code section 903.4 states:
All persons sentenced to confinement for a period of one year
or less shall be confined in a place to be furnished by the county
where the conviction was had unless the person is presently
committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa [D]epartment of
[C]orrections, in which case the provisions of section 901.8 apply. All
persons sentenced to confinement for a period of more than one year
shall be committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa
[D]epartment of [C]orrections to be confined in a place to be
designated by the director and the cost of the confinement shall be
borne by the state. The director may contract with local
governmental units for the use of detention or correctional facilities
maintained by the units for the confinement of such persons.
3
“Section 903.4 clearly requires that any person sentenced to confinement for a
period of more than one year shall be committed to the custody of the [d]epartment
of [c]orrections.” State v. Kapell, 510 N.W.2d 878, 880 (Iowa 1994). Section 901.8
states in pertinent part: “If the person is presently in the custody of the director of
the Iowa [D]epartment of [C]orrections, the sentence shall be served at the facility
or institution in which the person is already confined unless the person is
transferred by the director.” Section 901.8, in conjunction with section 903.4,
“express a clear legislative intent that no defendant should be held in a county jail
facility for more than one year.” State v. Morris, 416 N.W.2d 688, 690 (Iowa 1987).
Suspension of the sentences “does not alter their character as sentences of
confinement.” State v. Patterson, 586 N.W.2d 83, 84 (Iowa 1988).
Parrow was presently in the custody of the department of corrections
pursuant to the OWI conviction. He was sentenced to a period of confinement in
excess of one year in connection with the charges that are a subject of this appeal.
He should have been committed to the department of corrections. We vacate his
sentence to the extent it specifies a jail sentence. We remand for entry of a
corrected sentencing order consistent with this opinion.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED.
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.