Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. McCann

Court of Appeals of Iowa

April 19, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL A. MCCANN, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G. Linn, Judge.

         A defendant appeals the district court's imposition of a consecutive sentence. AFFIRMED.

          Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.

          VOGEL, Judge.

         Michael McCann appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to four counts of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2015), and one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, also in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d). McCann claims the district court failed to adequately explain its reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         On May 16, 2016, the State charged McCann with four counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. On June 20, McCann pled guilty to all five counts, and a sentencing hearing was set for August 8. At sentencing, the State recommended a term of incarceration of five years on each count and requested the terms be served consecutively. McCann requested any terms of incarceration to be served concurrently. Ultimately, the district court sentenced McCann to terms of imprisonment of five years on each of the four counts of delivery of a controlled substance to run concurrently to each other and a term of imprisonment of five years on the possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver to run consecutively to the other terms of imprisonment. In discussing its decision to impose a consecutive sentence, the court stated:

In balancing these factors, the Court concludes confinement will be the order of the Court. I'm not going to run all of these sentences consecutive. The Court believes adequate rehabilitation can be done for this defendant, and deterrence both specifically to him and to the community can be satisfied if the first four counts are run concurrent, but Count V is run consecutive, so the total sentence will be ten years.

         II. Standard of Review

         When a sentence falls within statutory limits, we review it for abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). The district court is required to exercise its discretion when it imposes a sentence that is not mandatory. State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).

         III. Consecutive Sentence

         McCann argues the district court failed to adequately explain its specific reasons for imposing a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.