STATE OF IOWA vs. HARLAN MOTT, JR. Appellant. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARLAN MOTT, JR., Plaintiff, vs. IOWA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 24 / 05-1563
Filed May 4, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
HARLAN MOTT, JR.
Appellant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------HARLAN MOTT, JR.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
IOWA DISTRICT COURT
FOR POLK COUNTY,
Defendant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joel D. Novak
(criminal) and Gregory A. Hulse (contempt), Judges.
Appellant contends the district court erred in ordering his
imprisonment in the county jail instead of his commitment to the custody of
the Iowa Department of Corrections. WRIT ANNULLED; AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D.
Hendrickson, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
2
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard J. Bennett, Assistant
Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Steve Foritano,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
3
HECHT, Justice.
This case requires us to determine whether Harlan Mott, who was
sentenced to a jail term of one year in the county jail for a misdemeanor
assault conviction and later ordered to consecutively serve an additional
150 days in a county jail as punishment for contempt committed during the
trial on the assault charge, should be incarcerated in the county jail or
committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa Department of
Corrections.
Mott claims his terms of imprisonment for assault and
contempt constitute a “continuous term of imprisonment” in excess of one
year for which the district court must commit him to the custody of the
director of the Iowa Department of Corrections. The State contends the
district court correctly ordered Mott confined in county jail because
contempt may only be punished by imprisonment in a county jail pursuant
to Iowa Code section 665.4 (2005). For the reasons that follow, we affirm
the district court’s order requiring Mott’s confinement in the county jail and
annul the writ.
I.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
On August 29, 2005, a jury found Harlan Mott not guilty of tampering
with a witness and guilty of assault causing bodily injury. The district court
sentenced Mott to one year in the Polk County jail. Mott filed a notice of
appeal.
A separate contempt proceeding followed as a consequence of an
outburst by Mott, who screamed and sang profanity directed at the court on
the second day of the criminal trial. The district court found, in an order
filed on September 28, 2005, that Mott’s outburst constituted contempt, in
violation of sections 665.2(1) and 665.2(2). The court imposed a 150-day
4
term of imprisonment in the Polk County jail, to run consecutively to the
sentence imposed in the underlying criminal action.
On October 21, Mott filed a pro se petition for writ of certiorari
alleging the court was statutorily required to commit him to the custody of
the director of the Department of Corrections rather than order his
imprisonment in the county jail. See Iowa Code § 665.11 (indicating the
proper procedure for challenging an order to punish for contempt is a
petition for writ of certiorari). We issued the writ. Mott’s certiorari action
has been consolidated for our review with Mott’s direct appeal from the
August 29, 2005, order relating to the underlying criminal action.
II.
Scope of Review.
Our review of the sentence imposed in a criminal case is for
correction of errors at law. See State v. Morris, 416 N.W.2d 688, 689 (Iowa
1987); Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. The correctness of the district court’s order
directing that Mott’s punishment for contempt be served in the county jail
turns on the interpretation of a statute. We review questions of statutory
construction for correction of errors of law. State v. Vargason, 607 N.W.2d
691, 695 (Iowa 2000).
III.
Discussion.
Our analysis of whether Mott must be committed to the custody of
the director of the Department of Corrections rather than imprisoned in the
county jail under the circumstances of this case begins with section 901.8
(“consecutive sentences”).
The statute provides, in relevant part, a
“sentencing judge may order the second or further sentence to begin at the
expiration of the first or succeeding sentence,” and “if consecutive sentences
are specified in the order of commitment, the several terms shall be
construed as one continuous term of imprisonment.” Section 901.8 is
5
found in Iowa Code Title XVI (“Criminal Law and Procedure”), Subtitle 3
(“Criminal Corrections”). The references to sentencing in the language of
the statute, considered in conjunction with its placement within the Code,
plainly indicate that section 901.8 only applies when a defendant is ordered
to serve multiple terms of imprisonment as a consequence of criminal
offenses.
We conclude section 901.8 is inapplicable in this case. Mott received
one criminal sentence—a one-year term of imprisonment—for assault. He
was subsequently “punished,” not “sentenced,” for contempt pursuant to
section 665.4, which expressly prescribes “punishment for contempt.”
(Emphasis added.) Contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal, not criminal,
in nature. See State v. Sharkey, 574 N.W.2d 6, 7 (Iowa 1997) (citing Phillips
v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 380 N.W.2d 706, 708-09 (Iowa 1986)).
Because section 901.8 is inapplicable, the sentence for criminal
assault and the punishment for contempt must be considered in isolation,
not as “consecutive sentences” constituting “one continuous term of
imprisonment.”
Mott’s assault conviction resulting in a sentence of
confinement for a period of one year must, under section 903.4, be served
in the county jail. Mott must serve his separate punishment for contempt
in the county jail, pursuant to section 665.4. Therefore, the district court
correctly ordered Mott to serve all of the jail time in the county jail.
Our decision in this case must be distinguished from our prior
decisions that have applied section 901.8 in cases presenting multiple
criminal convictions. In State v. Morris, we vacated two concurrent, oneyear county jail sentences for OWI, third offense, and a consecutive oneyear county jail sentence for driving under suspension. 416 N.W.2d at 690.
We concluded the multiple sentences constituted one continuous term of
6
imprisonment in excess of one year under section 901.8 for which the
defendant must be committed to the custody of the director of the
Department of Corrections pursuant to sections 903.4 and 901.7. Id. at
689-90. Similarly, in State v. Kapell, we vacated a five-day county jail
sentence for driving under suspension, which was to be served
consecutively to a sentence of no more than two years imprisonment for
OWI, second offense, under the custody of the Department of Corrections.
510 N.W.2d 878, 880-81 (Iowa 1994). We again treated the consecutive
sentences imposed following multiple criminal convictions as one
continuous term of imprisonment under section 901.8 and consequently
concluded section 903.4 required the defendant’s commitment to the
custody of the Department of Corrections for driving while his license was
suspended. Id. Morris and Kapell are clearly distinguishable from the case
now before the court because they involved the imposition of consecutive
criminal sentences. In contrast, Mott was sentenced in only one criminal
case, and the term of 150 days in the county jail constituted “punishment”
for contempt, not a “sentence” for contempt.
IV.
Conclusion.
We conclude the district court did not err in ordering Mott to serve his
terms of imprisonment for assault and contempt in the county jail. The
writ is therefore annulled, and we affirm.
WRIT ANNULLED; 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.
