7 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State of Iowa v. Charles James David Olivergreen2 sentences2018See 812 N.W.2d 636 , 640 (Iowa 2012) (describing how appellant argued that his sentence *576 was disproportionate under the Bruegger test). 2018See 812 N.W.2d 636 , 640 (Iowa 2012) (describing how appellant argued that his sentence *576 was disproportionate under the Bruegger test). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Brueggergreen2 sentences2019In any event, Goodwin’s highly capable appellate counsel has not argued that Goodwin’s pro se district court filing can be construed to raise a Bruegger claim. 14 proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence.” State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 , 871–72 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S. Ct. 468, 472 (1962)). 2019In any event, Goodwin’s highly capable appellate counsel has not argued that Goodwin’s pro se district court filing can be construed to raise a Bruegger claim. 14 proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence.” State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 , 871–72 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S. Ct. 468, 472 (1962)). | 2 | 3 |
Tindell v. Stategreen2 sentences2019“Additionally, ‘a defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal sentence . . . .’ ” Jefferson, 926 N.W.2d at 525 (quoting Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Iowa 2001)). 2019“Additionally, ‘a defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal sentence . . . .’ ” Jefferson, 926 N.W.2d at 525 (quoting Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Iowa 2001)). | 1 | 1 |
Hill v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2019In any event, Goodwin’s highly capable appellate counsel has not argued that Goodwin’s pro se district court filing can be construed to raise a Bruegger claim. 14 proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence.” State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 , 871–72 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S. Ct. 468, 472 (1962)). 2019In any event, Goodwin’s highly capable appellate counsel has not argued that Goodwin’s pro se district court filing can be construed to raise a Bruegger claim. 14 proceedings prior to the imposition of the sentence.” State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862 , 871–72 (Iowa 2009) (quoting Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 , 82 S. Ct. 468, 472 (1962)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lathropgreen2 sentences2019A proper motion to challenge an illegal sentence “includes claims that the court lacked the power to impose the sentence . . . , including claims that the sentence is outside the statutory bounds or that the sentence itself is unconstitutional.” Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 871 . 3 For example, in State v. Lathrop, we held that the defendant properly brought 3The briefing by Goodwin’s appellate counsel does not present a Bruegger claim. 15 a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge his sentence to lifetime parole as unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause of the Iowa Constitution. 2019A proper motion to challenge an illegal sentence “includes claims that the court lacked the power to impose the sentence . . . , including claims that the sentence is outside the statutory bounds or that the sentence itself is unconstitutional.” Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 871 . 3 For example, in State v. Lathrop, we held that the defendant properly brought 3The briefing by Goodwin’s appellate counsel does not present a Bruegger claim. 15 a motion to correct an illegal sentence to challenge his sentence to lifetime parole as unconstitutional under the ex post facto clause of the Iowa Constitution. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kidogreen2 sentences2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). 2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Defoe v. State, *871 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). 2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Randall Book Corp. v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). 2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). | 1 | 1 |
Defoe v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Defoe v. State, *871 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). 2009See Defoe v. State, 750 A.2d 1200, 1201 (Del.Super.Ct.2000) (finding a sentence that violates the Double Jeopardy Clause illegal); State v. Kido, 3 Haw.App. 516 , 654 P.2d 1351, 1356 (1982) (considering a cruel and unusual sentence to be illegal); Randall Book Corp. v. State, 316 Md. 315 , 558 A.2d 715, 719 (1989) (same); Brown v. State, 99 P.3d 489, 491 (Wyo.2004) (finding challenge to illegal sentence to include challenges that the sentence is unconstitutional). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Michael Jefferson v. Iowa District Court for Scott County
green
2 sentences2019“Additionally, ‘a defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal sentence . . . .’ ” Jefferson, 926 N.W.2d at 525 (quoting Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Iowa 2001)). 2019“Additionally, ‘a defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal sentence . . . .’ ” Jefferson, 926 N.W.2d at 525 (quoting Tindell v. State, 629 N.W.2d 357, 360 (Iowa 2001)). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State of Iowa v. Bradley Steven Graham
green
2 sentences2017Graham, 897 N.W.2d at 489 (citing Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 863 ). 2017Graham, 897 N.W.2d at 489 (citing Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 863 ). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2009There is a split in the courts regarding whether juvenile adjudications may be utilized as sentence enhancements in criminal cases in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. 2009There is a split in the courts regarding whether juvenile adjudications may be utilized as sentence enhancements in criminal cases in light of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 , 120 S. Ct. 2348 , 147 L. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.