from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G.
Reidel and Mark D. Cleve, Judges.
defendant appeals his ten-year sentence.
M. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.
POTTERFIELD, PRESIDING JUDGE.
Gryp appeals the district court's imposition of a
ten-year sentence of incarceration for his conviction for
possession with intent to deliver (methamphetamine), a class
"C" felony. Gryp maintains the court should have
suspended his sentence. He argues the court abused its
discretion by failing to place more weight on positive
factors outlined in the report from the presentence
investigation (PSI) and failing to consider the
"naturally deterrent effect" of the fact that,
during the commission of this crime, Gryp was shot multiple
times by the friend to whom he intended to sell
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. Bentley, 757 N.W.2d 257, 262
(Iowa 2008) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).
"Abuse of discretion occurs only when 'the decision
was exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly
untenable or unreasonable.'" Id. (citation
concedes, the sentence imposed by the district court is
within the statutory limits. See Iowa Code
§§ 124.401(1)(c)(6) (defining the crime as a class
"C" felony); 902.9(1)(d) (providing the maximum
sentence for a class "C" felony is "no more
than ten years"). Additionally, we note that both the
State and the preparer of the PSI recommended incarceration.
Still, Gryp maintains the court abused its discretion because
it did not place more emphasis on the facts that Gryp did not
commit any additional offenses during the thirteen months he
was out on bond between his arrest and sentencing, he was
prepared for and cooperated with the preparation of the PSI
report, only one crime in his long criminal history was
violent in nature, he had been steadily employed at the same
job for two years at the time of sentencing, he has a
consistent employment history, and he graduated high school.
we cannot agree with all Gryp's contentions. While he
maintains he did not committ any additional offenses while
out on bond, the more accurate statement would be that he was
not charged with any additional offenses during that time
period. According to Gryp's statements to the PSI
preparer, he continued to smoke marijuana "a couple
times per week" until "a few weeks" before
meeting with the preparer on May 23, 2018. Additionally, Gryp
told the preparer he continued to use methamphetamine monthly
until a week before their meeting. And while Gryp has
generally maintained employment during the times he has not
been incarcerated, having a job has not prevented Gryp from
using or selling illegal substances. At the time of the
present offense, he was employed but decided to sell drugs in
order "make some quick cash."
being said, the factors Gryp claims the court should have
placed more emphasis on-including the specific facts
surrounding his commission of the crime-were included in the
PSI report, which the district court explicitly stated it
considered. During the sentencing colloquy, the court said:
The-it has been noted by both parties, the primary issue
before the Court this morning is whether or not the Court
should suspend that sentence. And in making that
determination, I have taken into consideration all of the
information contained in the presentence investigation report
as well as the recommendations made by the presentence
investigation writer, by the State, and by the defense in
And when I put all that together, I note with considerable
concern, Mr. Gryp, your prior criminal conviction history
which consists of two felony convictions and a conviction of
2013 that led to your probation being revoked on two
occasions in connection with that file, ultimately landing
you in prison on that offense and the fact that this offense
took place less than a year-or approximately a year, I should
say, after you finished your parole from that offense. I also
note the positive information that's contained in the
presentence investigation report, and again, all of the
statements that have been made by the various parties here
In-on balance, the Court does find that for the protection of
the community, that imposition of the sentence is the most