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. Lester

Court of Appeals of Iowa

July 3, 2019

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
EDUARD NICKOLAS LESTER, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Adria A.D. Kester, Judge.

         Eduard Lester appeals his sentences for two counts of robbery and two counts of burglary.

          Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, (until withdrawal) and Martha J. Lucey and Brenda J. Gohr, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.

          Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

          Considered by Doyle, P.J., May, J., and Carr, S.J. [*]

          Carr, Senior Judge.

         Eduard Lester appeals his sentences for two counts of robbery in the second degree and two counts of burglary in the first degree. See Iowa Code §§ 711.3, 713.3 (2017). He appeals the provisions of his sentences that impose: fines for his robbery charges without suspending the fines, consecutive sentences, court costs and attorney fees, and law enforcement initiative surcharges. We find the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the fines or in running his sentences consecutively. However, the court erred in imposing costs and fees without evaluating his reasonable ability to pay and in imposing law enforcement initiative surcharges for his robbery charges without statutory authorization. Therefore, we vacate his sentences in part and remand for resentencing.

         I. Background Facts and Proceedings

         On January 16, 2018, Lester pled guilty to four separate counts contained in FECR055820 and FECR055930. In FECR055820, he pled guilty to committing burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree at an Ames address on July 24, 2017. In FECR055930, he pled guilty to committing burglary in the first degree and robbery in the second degree at a Nevada address on July 31, 2017. The parties entered into a plea agreement as part of the plea. For each burglary charge, the parties agreed to recommend a term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years plus costs, fees, and restitution. For each robbery charge, the parties agreed to recommend a term of incarceration not to exceed ten years and a $1000 fine, suspended, plus costs, fees, and restitution. The parties also agreed to recommend running the terms of incarceration for each burglary charge concurrently with each related robbery charge, with the total terms of incarceration for FECR055820 and FECR055930 run consecutively. On February 26, the court entered the sentencing order, which includes the following provisions: terms of incarceration as described in the plea agreement; a $1000 fine for each robbery charge, not suspended; "restitution in an amount to be determined at a later time" for each charge; and "a $125 law enforcement initiative surcharge" for each charge. Lester appeals.

         II. Standard of Review

         When a sentence is within the statutory limits, we review the sentence for abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). "[A] district court did not abuse its discretion if the evidence supports the sentence." Id. at 553. When the defendant claims the sentence is outside the statutory limits, we review the sentence for correction of errors at law. Id.

         III. Fine for Robbery

         Lester argues the district court erred in imposing, but not suspending, a fine for each robbery charge. He specifically argues the court erroneously believed it had no authority to suspend his fines. Our supreme court has not ruled on whether a trial court has authority to suspend the fine for a forcible felony. If there is no such authority, his argument must fail. However, regardless of whether the court had the authority to suspend his fines, the sentencing transcript shows the court considered and declined to suspend the fine for each robbery charge, on the merits, without citing any ...


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.