Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice, Judge.
Kelly Brown appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to the charge of aiding and abetting forgery.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, and Ricki N. Osborn, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Danilson and Mullins, JJ.
Kelly Brown appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court following her guilty plea to the charge of aiding and abetting forgery, in violation of Iowa Code sections 703.1(1), 715A.1(1), and 715A.2(2)(a) (2011), a class D felony. Brown contends the district court abused its discretion in denying her request for a deferred judgment. We affirm.
At Brown's sentencing hearing the State recommended a five-year suspended sentence with probation for a period of two years, plus payment of restitution. The presentence investigation report recommended probation and payment of restitution. Brown, through counsel, requested a deferred judgment.
After Brown made her statement of allocution, the district court stated:
Miss Brown, I've reviewed your file. I have reviewed the presentence investigat[ion] report. And for your information, I am going to reject the request by your counsel for a deferred judgment; and I want you to know why. If you were twenty, twenty-five years younger and you had no criminal record, I would be tempted to give you a deferred judgment. But you're middle-aged; and when you get to be that age, you need to know better. And you do know better. I know you do.
Brown acknowledged she knew better. The court continued:
And it's because of that that I'm not going to give you a deferred judgment. But at the same time, I'm confident that you will be able to fulfill, without difficulty, your terms of probation and that you will move forward in a positive manner in terms of your obligations of citizenship. But that's the reason why—it's because of your age as much as anything—that I reject your request for deferred judgment. I just don't feel that it's applicable to people that have had life experiences that you've had and certainly should know better, given the nature of the crime.
The other thing that works against that is that this was a scheme. There were multiple people involved; and the amount of money involved here, the $782.64, I believe is significant ...