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. Forkner

Court of Appeals of Iowa

February 20, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
DALLAS EDWARD FORKNER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J. Oeth, Judge.

         Defendant appeals his convictions on two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, second offense.

          Andrew J. Boettger of Hastings, Gartin & Boettger, LLP, Ames, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.

          BOWER, JUDGE.

         Dallas Forkner appeals his convictions on two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, second offense. We find Forkner failed to preserve error because he did not object to the statement in the presentence investigation report (PSI) concerning risk assessments at the time of the sentencing hearing. We affirm his convictions.

         I. Background Facts & Proceedings

         On November 27, 2017, Forkner pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (2016), a class "B" felony. He also pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, second or subsequent offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6) (2017), a class "C" felony.

         Prior to sentencing on the two offenses, a PSI report was prepared, which stated, "Department risk assessments indicate the defendant is at high risk to reoffend." Forkner filed a sentencing memorandum, which challenged some statements in the PSI but not the statement he had a high risk to reoffend. The district court stated it would consider the PSI to be amended by Forkner's comments in the sentencing memorandum. After this, the court asked, "Can the court rely on the contents of the PSI from the defendant's perspective?" Defense counsel stated, "Yes, Your Honor." The court stated it would consider the PSI as corrected.

         The district court then stated,

I frankly think in light of your criminal history that you're at high risk to re-offend. That's-I don't have any magic ball up here. So I don't know. I hope you don't re-offend. But your history is that you re-offend.
Okay. The PSI author said you're at high risk to re-offend.

         The court sentenced Forkner to a term of imprisonment not to exceed seventy-five years on the first charge and thirty years on the second charge, to be served concurrently. He now appeals, claiming the court ...


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.