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. Goodwin

Court of Appeals of Iowa

June 7, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LOREN ANTON GOODWIN III, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers, District Associate Judge.

         A defendant appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty. AFFIRMED.

          Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for appellant.

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

          Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.

          VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

         Loren Goodwin III appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty to possession of methamphetamine, second offense, and eluding, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(5) and 321.279(2) (2016), both aggravated misdemeanors. The plea agreement called for the State to dismiss other pending charges and to make a sentencing recommendation of a two-year suspended sentence on each conviction, to run concurrently, with credit for time served and two years' probation along with the applicable minimum fines, surcharges, and court costs. The pleas were not conditioned on the court's acceptance.

         After accepting the guilty pleas, the court ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI) report, which recommended probation with placement in a residential correctional facility and mental-health and substance-abuse treatment. At sentencing, the court rejected the recommended sentence under the plea agreement and the PSI, and instead it imposed a two-year term of incarceration on each conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively to each other and consecutive to the sentence for an offense committed in another county, along with the minimum fines, surcharges, and court costs.

         Goodwin appeals claiming the court abused its discretion in not ordering probation in accordance with the plea agreement and the recommendation of the PSI, and also for running the sentences consecutively in light of the fact the eluding and possession of methamphetamine occurred at the same time.

         "[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters." State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). An abuse of discretion occurs only when "the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable." Id.

When imposing the sentence, the district court stated:
Mr. Goodwin, my goals with respect to sentencing are to provide for your rehabilitation and protection of the community. In trying to achieve those goals, to the extent these details have been made known to me, I have taken into account the recommendations of the parties, your age, your employment history and circumstances and goals, your educational background, your family circumstances and obligations, your ridiculous criminal history, your appearance and demeanor here in the courtroom, your substance abuse issues and needs, your mental health issues and needs, the nature of the offense and facts and circumstances surrounding it, and the other information presented here today in this hearing, as well as in the Presentence Investigation Report.
. . . .
. . . The reasons for consecutive sentences are ...

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.