from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Cynthia H.
Danielson (plea) and John G. Linn (sentencing), Judges.
defendant appeals from his sentence for possession with the
intent to deliver (marijuana), as an habitual offender.
William R. Monroe of Law Office of William Monroe,
Burlington, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Griffin appeals from his sentence for possession with the
intent to deliver (marijuana), as an habitual offender. He
maintains the sentencing court considered crimes to which he
did not admit and that were not proved. He asks that we
remand for resentencing. See State v. Sailer, 587
N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998). We consider Griffin's claim
for correction of errors at law. See State v.
Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515, 516 (Iowa 1998). We will only
upset the sentence on appellate review if "the defendant
demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect
in the sentencing procedure such as the trial court's
consideration of impermissible factors." Id.
February 12, 2016, Griffin was charged by trial information
with failure to affix a drug tax stamp (count I) and
possession with the intent to deliver (marijuana) (count II);
the State asserted the habitual-offender enhancement applied
to each charge. Shortly thereafter, Griffin entered into a
plea deal with the State whereby he agreed to enter a guilty
plea for the charge of possession with intent to deliver. In
return, the State agreed to dismiss count I and agreed any
sentence Griffin received for the charge would run concurrent
"to the sentence that may be reimposed on the Defendant
as a result of a parole violation on previous charge."
The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report,
and sentencing was set for a later date.
sentencing, on May 2, 2016, the court asked Griffin and his
counsel if there were any additions or corrections to the PSI
report. Griffin responded that one of his listed children was
no longer living and claimed that after being unsuccessfully
discharged from alcohol and drug dependency services-as the
latest report stated-he had reengaged with services. Griffin
did not object to any other parts of the PSI report, and he
did not claim any other statements in the report were
State recommended "confinement, " in accordance
with the PSI report's recommendation, "based on
[Griffin's] history, the nature of this crime, and the
other reasons as set forth in the PSI." Griffin asked
the court to place him on supervised probation. The court
Mr. Griffin, in making a sentencing decision, the Court
should do that which would provide the maximum opportunity
for your rehabilitation and at the same time protect the
community from further offenses by you and others.
In making my sentencing decision, I've carefully reviewed
the Presentence Investigation. I've taken into
consideration the comments of the attorneys, your comments,
and before coming in the courtroom, I reviewed the electronic
file to see what all was on the docket.
In connection with making a sentencing decision, it's my
job to announce the reasons or the factors I considered in
In this case, only a few factors support probation; a very
long list of factors support a ...