This decision has been referenced in a "Decisions Without Published Opinions" table in the North Western Reporter.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Timothy T. Jarman, District Associate Judge. A defendant appeals his sentence imposed for operating while intoxicated as a habitual offender.
Tod Deck of Deck Law, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean Pettinger, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Adam Kenworthy, Student Legal Intern, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Potterfield, JJ.
James Rose appeals his sentence imposed for operating while intoxicated (OWI), fourth offense, as a habitual offender, in violation of Iowa Code sections 321J.2 and 902.8 (2011). He contends the district court failed to provide adequate rationale on the record to allow for review. He contends, in the alternative, even if the record allows for review, the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider testimony on his behalf provided at the sentencing hearing. Finally, he asks that we preserve his claim of ineffective assistance for possible later review. We conclude the district court gave adequate reasons and did not abuse its discretion. We preserve his claim for ineffective assistance, and we affirm the conviction.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On December 8, 2012, Rose was arrested for driving while intoxicated, failure to install an ignition interlock device, and driving while barred. Rose pled guilty to operating while intoxicated, fourth offense, as a habitual offender on February 22, 2013. Following a motion by the State, the district court dismissed the other two charges.
A sentencing hearing took place on March 11, 2013. At the hearing, the State argued Rose should be imprisoned, citing five previous OWI convictions, some following alcohol treatment opportunities that Rose had failed to take full advantage of. The State also noted Rose had failed to install an ignition interlock device and failed to obtain SR-22 insurance, as required. Rose offered seven witnesses, including family members, a coworker, and fellow recovering addicts. Each testified that Rose had been committed to his recovery for alcohol addiction and inpatient treatment would be more beneficial to Rose than imprisonment.
The court sentenced Rose to a term of incarceration not to exceed fifteen years, with a required minimum of three years before parole eligibility. Explaining its reasoning, the court stated:
The defendant stands convicted and is guilty of the charge contained in Count I of the trial information in this case which is Operating While Intoxicated, fourth offense, with the habitual offender enhancement. In this situation the court has one of two options: that is to impose the term of incarceration not to exceed 15 years or to suspend all of it and place the defendant on a period of probation.
I have to say when someone has reached this status in the criminal justice system to be classified as a habitual offender status, it is rare that the 15-year sentence gets suspended and they're put on probation, but I have done that in a case with this same type of a charge, it wasn't with these facts. It wasn't with the criminal history of Mr. Rose as he ...