from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Jason A.
Burns, District Associate Judge.
Brooks appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction for
assault causing bodily injury or mental illness. AFFIRMED.
M. Van Daele of Van Daele Law, LLC, North Liberty, for
appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J.
Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
Brooks appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to
assault causing bodily injury or mental illness, in violation
of Iowa Code section 708.2(1) and 708.2(2) (2017), a serious
misdemeanor. The district court sentenced Brooks to serve 365
days in the county jail with all but thirty days suspended.
On appeal, Brooks argues the district court abused its
discretion in sentencing him to thirty days in jail.
as here, the sentence imposed is within the statutory limits,
it "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). "A
district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its
discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent
clearly unreasonable, which occurs when the district court
decision is not supported by substantial evidence or when it
is based on an erroneous application of the law."
State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 564 (Iowa 2018)
court is to select the sentence that "will provide [the]
maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant,
and for the protection of the community from further offenses
by the defendant and others." Iowa Code § 901.5.
"In exercising its discretion, the district court is to
weigh all pertinent matters in determining a proper sentence,
including the nature of the offense, the attending
circumstances, the defendant's age, character, and
propensities or chances for reform." State v.
Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994). It must then
determine the appropriate sentence based on the individual
factors of each case, though no single factor alone may be
determinative. See id.
does not suggest the district court considered inappropriate
factors, nor does he claim the court failed to provide
adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. The sum and
substance of his argument is that "the district court
abused its discretion in providing a 30-day jail sentence
based on the facts of the incident and the other factors of
Brooks' sentence." Such a skimpy argument could be
considered a waiver of the issue. See Iowa R. App.
P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (requiring appellant's brief to contain
argument section presenting contentions and the reasons for
them with citations to authority relied on and stating
"[f]ailure to cite authority in support of an issue may
be deemed waiver of that issue"); Richardson v.
Neppl, 182 N.W.2d 384, 390 (Iowa 1970) ("A
proposition neither assigned nor argued presents no question
and need not be considered by us on review.").
Nevertheless, we address the merits of Brooks's claim.
imposing the sentence, the district court stated:
Mr. Brooks, I've had the chance to look through your
criminal history, which has included that deferred judgment
[for a felony level offense in 2014] that I was speaking
about before. I'm not taking into account any dismissed
criminal charges or any other charges for which there was no
conviction or guilty plea entered.
Mr. Brooks, the-there is a victim impact statement on file
which the Court did review prior to the sentencing hearing
today. During your plea of guilt on that charge, when you
entered a plea of guilty to Assault Causing Bodily Injury,
you did acknowledge in that that-essentially, that the
Minutes of Testimony are sufficient to support the factual
basis for this charge, as well. It appears, at least, that
there was a pretty significant injury, that the protected
party had to be taken for medical treatment in this case.
This is not your first charge of assault on your record,
either. And for those reasons and those reasons alone, I am
going to follow the recommendation of the State today.
evidence supports the sentence imposed by the district court,
and the court provided sufficient reasons for the sentence
and properly applied the law in imposing it. We find no abuse
Brooks would have preferred a different sentence, namely,
thirty days in jail, suspended, and one year self-supervised
probation, "mere disagreement with the sentence imposed,
without more, is insufficient to establish an abuse of
discretion." State v. ...