STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PHILLIP DWAYNE JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 14-0535 Filed March 11, 2015 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PHILLIP DWAYNE JONES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J. Schilling, Judge. The offender challenges the denial of his motion to correct illegal sentence. AFFIRMED. Jeffrey M. Lipman of Lipman Law Firm, P.C., Clive, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Tyron Rogers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee. Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ. 2 MCDONALD, J. In 2008, Phillip Jones was convicted of robbery in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1 and 711.3 (2007), and sentenced as a habitual offender to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed fifteen years, pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.8. Because the conviction was for a forcible felony, Jones was required to serve seventy percent of the sentence. See Iowa Code ยงยง 702.11(1), 902.12. In 2013, Jones filed in the district court a motion to correct illegal sentence, contending his sentence was illegal because it required him to serve at least seventy percent of the fifteen-year term rather than seventy percent of the ten-year term that would have been applicable in the absence of the habitual offender enhancement. The district court denied the motion. Jones timely filed this appeal. The same challenge to the interplay between the habitual offender enhancement and the forcible felony statute that Jones raises now was addressed and rejected in State v. Ross, 729 N.W.2d 806, 811 (Iowa 2007). In that case, the supreme court held the seventy-percent mandatory minimum for forcible felonies applied to the habitual offender sentencing enhancement. See Ross, 729 N.W.2d at 811. We are not at liberty to ignore controlling authority. See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 65 (Iowa Ct. App. 2014). The judgment of the district court is affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e). AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
