from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Christopher
L. Bruns, Judge.
Porter appeals his sentencing order.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, (until withdrawal) and
Bradley M. Bender, Assistant Appellate Defender, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and May, JJ.
State charged William Porter with first-degree robbery. He
ultimately pled guilty to second-degree
robbery. See Iowa Code § 711.3
robbery is punishable by a prison term not to exceed ten
years. Under Iowa Code sections 901.11(3) and 902.12(3), the
sentencing court must impose a mandatory minimum
"between one-half and seven-tenths" of the ten-year
plea deal centered on the mandatory minimum. In exchange for
Porter's plea, the State agreed to recommend that the
court impose whatever mandatory minimum the presentence
investigation report (PSI) recommended.
turned out, the PSI recommended a minimum of seven years.
True to its word, the State asked the district court to
follow the PSI recommendation. Consistent with that
recommendation, the district court imposed a seventy-percent
mandatory minimum. Porter now appeals his sentence.
claims the district court wrongly considered the risk
assessment in the PSI because it was not
"validated." But "[a] court has a right to
rely on the information in the PSI when the defendant fails
to object to the information contained in the
PSI." State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19,
24 (Iowa 2018). At his sentencing, Porter objected to several
portions of the PSI. Yet he did not object to the risk
assessment. Therefore, "the court had a right to rely on
the assessment." See id. Porter failed to
preserve error as to his complaints about the risk
fallback, Porter contends his counsel below was ineffective
in failing to preserve his risk-assessment arguments. If the
record is sufficient, we can reach ineffective-assistance
claims on direct appeal. Here, though, the record contains no
evidence concerning the validity of the risk assessment. So
we preserve this issue for possible postconviction review.
See Headley, 926 N.W.2d at 551.
also claims the district court abused its discretion by not
suspending the fine. We have recently held Iowa law prohibits
suspending or deferring a sentence when the crime is a
forcible felony. State v. Ali, No. 18-0815, 2019 WL
1294192, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2019) (finding current
Iowa law "withholds the authority to suspend a sentence
for a forcible felony"). And we have ruled "the
$1000 fine is not discretionary-because of the current
wording of Iowa Code section 902.9(4)-nor may it be
suspended-because robbery is a forcible felony."
State v. Gardner, No. 08-1046, 2009 WL 1067062, at