STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALAN LEE SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-408 / 06-1597
Filed October 12, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALAN LEE SCOTT,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, George L.
Stigler, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his judgment and sentence following his
conviction for attempting to entice a minor. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
State Appellant Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, Assistant
Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda M.
Fangman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Heard by Zimmer P.J.,and Eisenhauer, J. and Schechtman, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code § 602.9206 (2007)
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Alan Scott appeals from his judgment and sentence following his
conviction for attempting to entice a minor in violation of Iowa Code section
710.10(3) (2005). He contends the district court erred in requiring him to register
as a sex offender as a condition of his probation. Because the issue is not ripe
for consideration, we affirm.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
The facts of this case are
undisputed and are summarized by the district court as follows:
On August 4, 2005, Sergeant Smock of the Black Hawk
County Sheriff’s Office, acting in an official capacity monitoring an
on-line internet chat room, was contacted by Defendant, Alan L.
Scott. Smock was signed onto the internet as “AllTiger43", in the
guise of a 14 year old girl who lived in Cedar Falls, Iowa.
Defendant Alan L. Scott is a 43 year old man who lives in Sioux
City.
During this first conversation the defendant clearly
acknowledged, after asking “AllTiger43", that he knew “AllTiger43"
was only 14 and that what he wanted to do with her was illegal.
On August 5, 2005, the defendant e-mailed a photo of his
private area showing his penis to “AllTiger43". When he e-mailed
this photo, Defendant clearly believed he was sending the photo to
a 14 year old girl. Later that day the defendant contacted
“AllTiger43” asking if she had received the photo.
On August 8, 2005, Defendant again made contact with
“AllTiger43" asking about her receipt of additional improperly sexual
photos he had sent. He additionally asked “AllTiger43", a person
he believed to be a 14 year old girl, to engage in sex. He stated he
could go to jail if seen with her because of her age.
On August 9 the defendant e-mailed additional photos of a
sexual nature to “AllTiger43" and again asked “AllTiger43" to
engage in sexual acts with him. Similar contacts were made on
August 10 and 11, 2005. Additional contacts were made by
Defendant to “AllTiger43" on August 18, 19, and 20, 2005. The
conversations involved requests by Defendant for sex with the 14
year old. He made arrangements to meet the child in a park in
Cedar Falls to engage in sex. He failed to follow through on that
commitment because of a job conflict.
On August 22, 2005, the defendant again made contacts with
“AllTiger43” and planned to come to Cedar Falls to engage in sex.
On that day a search warrant was executed against Defendant’s
home in Sioux City and he was arrested.
3
On September 1, 2005, Scott was charged with enticing away a minor in
violation of Iowa Code section 710.10(2). He waived his right to a jury trial and
the district court heard the case on the minutes of testimony and exhibits. Scott
argued he was only guilty of the lesser offense of attempting to entice a minor in
violation of section 710.10(3). The court found Scott guilty of attempting to entice
a minor in violation of 710.10(3) and sentenced him to one year imprisonment,
suspending all but 180 days of the sentence. Scott was also ordered to register
as a sex offender. Scott filed a motion to correct his sentence, arguing in part
that he should not be required to register as a sex offender, claiming convictions
under section 710.10(3) were excluded from the sex offender registry
requirements of sections 692A.2 (requiring persons convicted of a criminal
offense against a minor to register as sex offenders) and 692A.3 (defining
“criminal offense against a minor”). The motion was denied.
II. Scope and Standard of Review. Sentencing decisions of the district
court are reviewed for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Grandberry,
619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). A sentence will not be upset on appellate
review unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of district court discretion or
a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 592
(Iowa 1983).
III. Ripeness. The State argues that the issue here is not ripe for review
because the court’s inclusion of Scott’s duty to register as a condition of
probation was superfluous.
“A case is ripe for adjudication when it presents an actual, present
controversy, as opposed to one that is merely hypothetical or speculative.” State
4
v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 616 N.W.2d 575, 578 (Iowa 2000). That rationale is “to protect
[administrative] agencies from judicial interference until an administrative
decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the
challenging parties.” Abbott Lab. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 148-49, 87 S. Ct.
1507, 1515, 18 L. Ed. 2d 681, 691 (1967), overruled on other grounds by
Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 105, 97 S. Ct. 980, 984, 51 L. Ed. 2d 192, 199
(1977).
In State v. Bullock, 638 N.W.2d 728, 735 (Iowa 2002), our supreme court
held the sentencing court was without authority to determine the length of any
future registration by the defendant. This is not a case involving a question as to
the length of a future registration.
However, the court's involvement in the
registration process is restricted to (1) informing convicted defendants who are
not sentenced to confinement of their duty to register and (2) the collection of
specified information from such defendants. See Iowa Code § 692A.5(1). When
a person who has been convicted of a criminal offense against a minor is
released from prison the statute charges the sheriff, warden, or superintendent of
the correctional facility to inform the person of their duty to register. Id. We
therefore agree with the State that it was unnecessary for the district court to
include Scott’s duty to register.
As a result, the issue is not ripe for our
consideration. Scott may challenge the requirement with the Iowa Department of
Public Safety if he is ordered to register as a sex offender for this offense after he
has completed his incarceration. See id. § 692A.8.
Scott has filed a motion requesting this court take judicial notice of the fact
he is currently registered as a sex offender. We grant the motion but note we do
5
not know the details of his registration and find the information does not change
our analysis.
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.
