Mazin Mudasir Mohamedali v. State of Iowa

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1535
Filed April 9, 2025

MAZIN MUDASIR MOHAMEDALI,
Applicant-Appellant,

vs.

STATE OF IOWA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Sean McPartland,

Judge.

A postconviction-relief applicant appeals the district court’s order granting

summary disposition and dismissing his application. REVERSED AND

REMANDED.

Gregory F. Greiner, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and

Sandy, JJ.
2

AHLERS, Judge.

In 2018, Mazin Mohamedali pleaded guilty to second-degree robbery, a

class “C” felony—a crime Mohamedali committed when he was seventeen years

old. The district court entered judgment and sentenced Mohamedali to serve an

indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed ten years. The sentence did not

include a mandatory minimum term of incarceration. The court suspended

Mohamedali’s sentence and placed him on probation.

Over the next few years, Mohamedali repeatedly violated the terms of his

probation, prompting the State to start probation-revocation proceedings in 2022.

In those proceedings, Mohamedali admitted to violating terms of his probation. As

to recommendations for disposition, neither the State nor Mohamedali seemed to

acknowledge or recognize that the original sentence had not imposed a mandatory

minimum, as the State asked the court to impose the “original sentence of ten

years in prison” with a seventy percent mandatory minimum, and Mohamedali’s

counsel asked the court to impose a fifty percent mandatory minimum.

The probation-revocation court revoked Mohamedali’s probation and

ordered him to serve the original ten-year sentence. It also imposed a six-year

mandatory minimum. Mohamedali filed a notice of appeal. But a three-justice

panel of the supreme court dismissed his appeal on its own motion, explaining that

“Iowa Code chapter 822 provides the exclusive remedy for challenging a probation

revocation.” See State v. Allen, 402 N.W.2d 438, 440–41 (Iowa 1987) (“[P]robation

revocation can be challenged only by application for postconviction relief and not

by direct appeal.”); State v. Rheuport, 225 N.W.2d 122, 123 (Iowa 1975) (“We hold

chapter 663A [(now recodified in chapter 822)] provides the exclusive remedy for
3

challenging revocation of probation.”); State v. Hoffman, No. 17-1528, 2018 WL

4923019, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2018) (“As a general rule, direct appeal from

a probation-revocation proceeding is not allowed. Postconviction-relief

proceedings are the exclusive remedy.” (internal citation omitted)).

In addition to filing two motions to correct an illegal sentence in his criminal

case, both of which the district court denied, Mohamedali also filed an application

for postconviction relief (PCR) under chapter 822 (2022) claiming the probation-

revocation court did not properly consider juvenile sentencing factors when setting

the mandatory minimum. Both the State and Mohamedali filed motions for

summary disposition. The PCR court interpreted Mohamedali’s application as a

motion to correct an illegal sentence and granted the State’s motion for summary

disposition, dismissing Mohamedali’s application because it found the probation-

revocation court considered the necessary factors when it imposed a mandatory

minimum. In doing so, the PCR court also denied Mohamedali’s application.

Mohamedali appeals. He argues the “PCR court erred in granting a motion

for summary disposition when material facts existed regarding [his] mandatory

minimum probation revocation sentence when considering his juvenile status at

the time of the offense” and that “the PCR court erred by not finding that the

probation revocation court entered an unlawful sentence.”

I. Standard of Review

Summary dispositions of PCR applications are reviewed for correction of

errors at law. Linn v. State, 929 N.W.2d 717, 729 (Iowa 2019). When the PCR

court grants summary disposition under section 822.6 (2022), we apply summary

judgment standards on appeal. Moon v. State, 911 N.W.2d 137, 142 (Iowa 2018).
4

Those standards recognize that summary disposition is appropriate “if the

pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show . . . there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Id. (quoting Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.981(3)).

II. Discussion

A. Failure to Apply Juvenile-Sentencing Factors

Mohamedali first argues the probation-revocation court imposed an illegal

sentence because it didn’t properly apply juvenile-sentencing factors. See State

v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 135 (Iowa 2017) (listing juvenile sentencing factors). But

the claim Mohamedali attempts to raise regarding improper consideration of

juvenile sentencing factors is not an illegal sentencing challenge as he suggests.

See Goodwin v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 936 N.W.2d 634, 643–44 (Iowa 2019) (explaining

why a challenge to the application of the juvenile sentencing factors is not a

challenge to an illegal sentence). Nor is it a claim on which relief could be granted

under chapter 822. See Iowa Code § 822.2(1). As a result, we reject

Mohamedali’s challenge regarding the probation-revocation court’s application of

the juvenile-sentencing factors.

B. Imposition of a Mandatory Minimum

To resolve Mohamedali’s second claim, we must first determine whether the

probation-revocation court imposed a sentence. If things had progressed in

accordance with statutory provisions at the dispositional phase of Mohamedali’s

probation-revocation proceeding, we would conclude the probation-revocation
5

court did not impose a sentence and simply subjected Mohamedali to the

previously suspended sentence.

As noted, at his criminal sentencing, Mohamedali was adjudicated guilty of

second-degree robbery and sentenced to serve an indeterminate term of

incarceration not to exceed ten years with no mandatory minimum. The

sentencing court suspended that sentence and placed Mohamedali on probation.

Once it was established that Mohamedali violated his probation, the probation-

revocation court had at its disposal only those options set forth in Iowa Code

section 908.11(4). Specifically, the probation-revocation court could (1) hold

Mohamedali in contempt, (2) extend the period of probation, or (3) revoke the

probation “and require the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or any lesser

sentence.”1 See id. § 908.11(4). If the probation-revocation court had chosen the

third option and required Mohamedali to serve the original ten-year sentence, we

would not conclude it “imposed” a sentence. We would simply conclude the court

required Mohamedali to serve the sentence originally imposed as permitted by

section 908.11(4).

But that’s not what happened here. Instead, the probation-revocation court

not only revoked Mohamedali’s probation and required him to serve the original

ten-year sentence, it added a six-year minimum sentence—a minimum not

imposed in Mohamedali’s original sentence. Because the probation-revocation

1 In instances where imposition of sentence was previously deferred, then the

probation-revocation court “may impose any sentence which might originally have
been imposed.” Iowa Code § 908.11(4). However, this option was not available
to the probation-revocation court in this instance because imposition of
Mohamedali’s sentence was not previously deferred.
6

court imposed a mandatory minimum period of incarceration that was not originally

ordered, we conclude the court imposed a new sentence.

As for Mohamedali’s second claim, he “asserts that the probation-

revocation court did not have the authority to increase the original criminal

sentence” and impose a new harsher sentence. Mohamedali contends that this

amounts to an illegal sentence because the probation-revocation court could not

lawfully impose a new sentence when he had already been sentenced. This point

is key because Mohamedali failed to receive a ruling on this claim from the PCR

court, seemingly failing to preserve error and preventing this court from reaching

the merits. See Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 862 (Iowa 2012). But an

illegal sentencing challenge can be raised at any time, including for the first time

on appeal. See State v. Chawech, 15 N.W.3d 78, 86 (Iowa 2024) (noting that error-

preservation principles are irrelevant to illegal sentences and challenges to the

sentence are not waived by failing to raise it in the district court). We conclude his

claim amounts to an illegal sentencing challenge, so we can address the merits.

See id.

Turning to the merits, we conclude the sentence imposed by the probation-

revocation court was an illegal one. While the sentence imposed was within

statutory limits if the probation-revocation court had been the original sentencing

court, it could not be lawfully imposed as a disposition of Mohamedali’s probation

violation. The original sentencing court set the outer boundaries of Mohamedali’s

sentence. Once the probation-revocation court decided to revoke Mohamedali’s

probation, it only had the option to “require the defendant to serve the sentence
7

imposed or any lesser sentence.” See Iowa Code § 908.11(4). It could not lawfully

impose a mandatory minimum to Mohamedali’s original sentence.

Because the probation-revocation court had no authority to add a

mandatory minimum to Mohamedali’s sentence, its action in doing so constituted

the imposition of an illegal sentence. Therefore, we reverse the PCR court’s

decision to grant the State’s motion for summary disposition and dismiss

Mohamedali’s PCR application. In doing so, we mean no criticism of the PCR

court. As previously noted, Mohamedali never raised this issue to the PCR court.

We remand for entry of an order granting Mohamedali’s motion for summary

disposition and an order granting his PCR application to strike that part of the

probation-revocation order that imposed a mandatory minimum sentence, to result

in Mohamedali being required to serve the originally imposed sentence with no

mandatory minimum.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.