Summary
affirming district court's ruling that DOC could not provide an inmate with a “discharge date” for his first sentence of imprisonment when it was part of a consecutive sentence under section 901.8
Summary of this case from State v. MaklenburgOpinion
No. 12–0111.
2012-09-19
Joel Patrick McKEAG, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, John R. Baldwin, Doc Director, John Fayram, ASP Warden, and Janet Fliehler, ASP Records Administrator, Defendants–Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Carl D. Baker, Judge. Plaintiff appeals the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus. AFFIRMED. Joel Patrick McKeag, Anamosa, pro se appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Forrest Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Carl D. Baker, Judge.
Plaintiff appeals the district court's order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss his petition for writ of mandamus. AFFIRMED.
Joel Patrick McKeag, Anamosa, pro se appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Forrest Guddall, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
Considered by VAITHESWARAN, P.J., and POTTERFIELD and BOWER, JJ.
BOWER, J.
Plaintiff Joel McKeag filed a petition for writ of mandamus, requesting the district court order defendants Iowa Department of Corrections and associated corrections staff (“DOC”) to provide a “discharge date” for McKeag's first consecutive twenty-five-year sentence of imprisonment. The DOC filed a motion to dismiss McKeag's petition. Following a hearing, the district court granted the motion and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The court determined that although McKeag's consecutive sentence was technically comprised of two separate sentences, they must be construed as one continuous term of imprisonment; therefore, there was no specific date on which one sentence ends and the second sentence begins. SeeIowa Code § 901.8 (2011). Accordingly, the court concluded it could not compel the DOC to provide a record that does not exist.
McKeag is currently serving two twenty-five-year sentences of imprisonment, after pleading guilty to sexual abuse in the second degree and burglary in the first degree. See McKeag v. State, No. 10–1084, 2011 WL 3925537, at *1 (Iowa Ct.App. Sept. 8, 2011); McKeag v. State, No. 08–0752, 2009 WL 2169041, at *1 (Iowa Ct.App. July 22, 2009). In the August 1993 sentencing order, the district court explicitly stated McKeag's two twenty-five-year sentences “shall run consecutively.”
On appeal, McKeag raises various claims of error in regard to the district court's dismissal of his petition and failure to compel the DOC to disclose “public information.” Because we agree with the district court's reasoning, its conclusions under the facts presented, and its application of the law, we affirm pursuant to Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.1203(a), (d).
AFFIRMED.