Opinion
No. 4-241 / 03-1720
April 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marion County, Terry L. Wilson, District Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals from the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to forgery. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Terry Rachels, County Attorney, and Marc Wallace, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Robert Joseph Sedlock, Jr. appeals from the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty to forgery. He claims the district court erred in sentencing him to prison. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
The State charged Sedlock with forgery, in violation of Iowa Code sections 715A.2(1)(b) and 715A.2(2)(a)(3) (2003), a class "D" felony. Sedlock pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement under which the State would recommend a five-year suspended prison term, two years formal probation, a $750 fine, and restitution. In accepting Sedlock's plea of guilty the district court informed him, and Sedlock acknowledged he understood, that the court did not have to follow the plea agreement, and that Sedlock might receive a less favorable sentence. At the sentencing hearing the State recommended the sentence that it had agreed to recommend. The court nevertheless sentenced Sedlock to a term of no more than five years imprisonment, a suspended fine, and payment of restitution.
Scope and Standards of Review.
Our review is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). "[T]he 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 improper matters. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724. Because the challenged sentence does not fall outside statutory limits, we review the court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). "In applying the abuse of discretion standard to sentencing decisions, it is important to consider the societal goals of sentencing criminal offenders, which focus on rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the community from further offenses." Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724 (citing Iowa Code § 901.5 (1999)). An abuse of sentencing discretion is found only if the sentencing court's discretion has been exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999).
Merits.
Sedlock claims the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to imprisonment rather than a suspended sentence and probation, because the record shows that "his four children and his parents needed him." We disagree.
In exercising its discretion, the sentencing court should weigh and consider all pertinent matters, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant's age, character and propensities, and chances for reform. State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979)). In determining a proper sentence the courts owe a duty to the public as much as to the defendant, and the punishment should fit both the crime and the individual. Id. A court's exercise of sentencing discretion is demonstrated by its statement on the record of reasons for selecting a particular sentence. See, e.g., Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)( d) (requiring court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence); State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 714 (Iowa 1995) (finding no abuse of sentencing discretion, based on the district court's statement of factors considered in reaching its sentencing decision).
In this case the district court considered and made findings concerning the nature of the offense and Sedlock's age, education, employment status, disability, number of dependent children, and marital status. It noted he had a lengthy criminal record, and that the current offense had been committed while he was on probation in other cases. The court stated that granting probation should be denied because (1) Sedlock had a lengthy criminal history, (2) Sedlock had committed the current offense while on probation, and (3) Sedlock had previously been given probation but had not taken advantage of the opportunity presented.
Conclusion.
The district court carefully and thoroughly considered relevant sentencing factors and clearly stated valid reasons for the sentence it imposed. We find no abuse in its exercise of sentencing discretion and affirm its sentence.