from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John M.
Michael Hall appeals the district court's sentence
claiming the court erred in not granting him a new
presentence investigation. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey L. Powell of The Law Office of Jeffrey L. Powell,
PLC, Washington, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel L. Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Michael Hall pled guilty to escape and was sentenced to a
five-year prison sentence to run consecutive to the sentence
Hall was already serving. On appeal, Hall claims the district
court abused its discretion in denying his request for a new
presentence investigation (PSI) and incorrectly relied on
portions of the PSI report to which Hall objected. Because we
find no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
5, 2016, Hall was placed at the Burlington Residential
Facility as a condition of his probation for a felony
conviction. On May 6, Hall ran from the facility. He was
found and arrested on June 13. On July 1, Hall's
probation was revoked. While he was serving a prison sentence
from the other convictions, Hall pled guilty to escape on
August 12. At the plea hearing, Hall asked the court to
sentence him that day using his March PSI report. The court
preferred to order a new PSI, stating, "[T]hey might
have different things to look at now. . . . [A]nd I think
that would be beneficial to you. It would also be beneficial
to the court. It will give more information to the court at
the time of sentencing." After hearing these statements
from the court and being informed where he was likely to be
incarcerated pending sentencing, Hall responded, "All
sentencing hearing was held on October 17, 2016. At
sentencing, Hall's attorney made three objections to the
PSI report. Specifically, defense counsel objected to the
notation of a charge for second-degree criminal mischief
rather than third-degree criminal mischief. He also noted he
was pursuing his GED and objected to the characterization he
was in the "moderate category for future violence and
moderately high category for future victimization, "
arguing the characterization infringed upon the presumption
of innocence. The district court stated it would
consider the portions of the PSI report not objected to, took
into account Hall was working toward his GED, and gave no
weight to the future violence and victimization assessment.
The court noted the conviction of the criminal mischief but
specifically noted it was in the third degree. The court also
observed Hall had been given suspended sentences on other
convictions in which probation had been revoked and this
charge stemmed from him escaping from a residential facility.
The court also noted that while Hall had good family support,
he had not made any progress on the payment of fines and had
abandoned efforts of rehabilitation when he fled from the
the court asked Hall if he knew of "any reason not to
proceed with sentencing today, " Hall responded,
"I'd like a new PSI." Upon further inquiry with
defense counsel about other objections Hall may have had,
defense counsel explained Hall had objections "to
characterizations contained in the attachment from the Lee
County Jail, " but defense counsel viewed the matters in
the attachment as "relatively minor."
asked for a suspended sentence due to his young age,
community ties, and having completed drug treatment. The
court sentenced Hall to a prison term not to exceed five
years. As the court recited reasons for the sentence, it
noted the PSI report stated Hall's main source of income
prior to his arrest was drugs. Hall interrupted and stated,
"Your Honor, I'd like to state that that is
information from my old PSI. That was not updated information
for the new one. He did not ask me that." The court
noted the objection. Hall appeals.
Scope and Standard of Review.
of the sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction
of errors at law. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720,
724 (Iowa 2002). "We will not reverse the decision of
the district court absent an abuse of ...