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. Quintorey Farshawn D'Qua Kemp

Court of Appeals of Iowa

August 2, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
QUINTOREY FARSHAWN D'QUA KEMP, Defendant-Appellant.

         Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer, Judge.

         A defendant appeals his sentence, asserting district court relied upon impermissible information. AFFIRMED.

          Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Bower, J., and Blane, S.J. [*]

          BLANE, SENIOR JUDGE.

         Defendant Quintorey Kemp appeals his sentence, claiming the district court improperly relied upon a jury's guilty verdict in another case, where judgment had not yet been entered, to determine the sentence to impose in this case. For the reasons set out below, we find no error and affirm.

         I. Background Facts and Procedure.

         On March 24, 2014, Kemp was charged by trial information with robbery in the first degree, willful injury causing serious injury, and intimidation with a dangerous weapon with intent, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.4(1), 708.6, and 711.2 (2014).[1] Kemp waived a jury and proceeded to a bench trial on January 15, 2016. The court found him guilty of all three charges on March 21.[2]The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI) report and set sentencing for May 16. On April 21, the department of correctional services submitted a PSI report on Kemp as to this case, as well as another case involving him, Black Hawk County case number FECR208562. The report contained details of both crimes and sentencing recommendations as to both.

         Before sentencing, Kemp and his attorney reviewed the PSI report. At sentencing, upon inquiry by the court, Kemp's attorney advised that they had no additions or corrections to the PSI. Kemp was sentenced to imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years on the robbery charge and ten years on the other two charges, all to be served concurrently. Because Kemp was a juvenile at the time of the offense, the court declined to impose the mandatory minimum sentence for the robbery charge. At sentencing the court stated:

I also don't find appropriate, given the second case, given the jury's finding of guilt for the crime of assault while participating in a felony, I also don't find that probation is appropriate because of that. I don't find that deferred judgment is appropriate. Suspended sentence isn't appropriate. Suspended sentence with residential facility placement is not appropriate.

On appeal, Kemp argues the sentencing court abused its discretion by considering the jury's guilty verdict of assault while participating in a felony in FECR208562 because, although a jury verdict of guilt had been entered, Kemp was still awaiting sentencing-thus there was no final judgment and the court should not have relied on the verdict.

         II. Scope of Review.

         This court reviews the district court's sentence for an abuse of discretion. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010). An abuse of discretion is found when the court exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. "A district court's ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law. When a sentence is not mandatory, the district court must exercise its discretion . . . ." State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016) (internal citations and marks omitted). "Sentencing decisions of the district court 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.