Background
Joshua Harlow pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse after forcing his ex-wife to have intercourse in 2017. His sentence included prison and a lifetime special sentence under Iowa Code section 903B.1. After his release to work release in 2022, Harlow failed to report to his parole officer, was rearrested the next day, and returned to prison for violating the terms of his special sentence.
About two weeks before Harlow’s anticipated 2024 discharge date, the State petitioned to commit him as a sexually violent predator under Iowa Code chapter 229A. The State proceeded on the ground that Harlow was “presently confined,” rather than alleging a recent overt act. The district court found beyond a reasonable doubt that Harlow was an SVP and ordered commitment.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed. It held that Harlow was “presently confined” under section 229A.2(10), which expressly includes incarceration as a condition of a special sentence following conviction for a sexually violent offense. His reincarceration for violating the section 903B special sentence therefore qualified, even though the violation itself was not sexual.
The court also held that due process did not require the State to prove a recent overt act on these facts. Harlow had been incarcerated continuously since 2017 except for one day, and requiring proof of a recent overt act during that period would be nearly impossible. The court declined to adopt a rule requiring such proof whenever a respondent had briefly entered the community before being returned to custody.
Key Takeaways
- Confinement for violating a section 903B special sentence is “present confinement” under Iowa’s SVP statute when the special sentence followed a sexually violent offense.
- Section 229A.4 provides alternative paths for an SVP petition: present confinement or a recent overt act.
- A one-day release into the community did not make proof of a recent overt act constitutionally necessary for Harlow’s commitment.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the legislature’s 2019 definition of “presently confined” to special-sentence revocations and confirms that an SVP petition may proceed without a newly alleged overt act in that setting. The court stressed that its ruling rests on Harlow’s specific circumstances, including his nearly uninterrupted confinement and unchallenged finding that his mental abnormality made future sexually violent conduct likely.