IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-1610 

Filed June 15, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TATIANA JACQUETTE BAKER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, Peter B. Newell, 

District Associate Judge.

Tatiana Baker appeals her sentence, claiming the district court abused its 

discretion in imposing judgment. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2

TABOR, Judge.

A jury convicted Tatiana Baker of assault causing bodily injury. On 

appeal, she challenges her thirty-day jail sentence with all but two days 

suspended along with one year of probation. Baker argues the district court 

abused its discretion in denying her request for a deferred judgment because she 

has no criminal history and the incident resulted from an alcohol-fueled bar fight. 

Because the court properly weighed the relevant factors in choosing a sentence

aimed at rehabilitating Baker and protecting society, we affirm.

Baker and her husband were outside a bar when another female patron

left the bar to smoke a cigarette. Baker insulted the other woman, and their

hostile interaction escalated. The husband was briefly involved in the fight before 

Baker hit the other woman. Baker straddled the woman on the pavement before 

the police arrived. The assault victim suffered scratches on her neck and back, a 

cut lip, two black eyes, and swelling to her head and neck.

The State charged Baker with assault causing bodily injury, a serious 

misdemeanor, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2(2) (2013). At her jury trial, 

Baker testified she was defending herself during the fight. The jury returned a 

guilty verdict. 

At sentencing, Baker’s attorney requested a deferred judgment on 

grounds that Baker has no criminal history and her conduct occurred during a bar 

fight where emotions ran high. The State recommended one year of jail with all 

but thirty days suspended. The district court rejected both requests and imposed 

a thirty-day sentence with all but two days suspended along with one year of 

probation. The court explained it chose the sentence for “the protection of 
3

society and for rehabilitation of defendant.” The court also noted the violent 

nature of the crime and Baker’s failure to take available steps to defuse the 

volatile situation.

On appeal, Baker contends the district court abused its discretion in 

sentencing her to thirty days in jail with all but two days suspended and a year of 

probation. An appellate court will identify such abuse by the sentencing court 

only when it exercises its discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable 

or unreasonable.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We 

review Baker’s challenge to correct any legal error resulting from an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440, 444 (Iowa 2006).

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s process of determining 

the appropriate sentence for Baker’s rehabilitation and for the protection of 

society. See Iowa Code § 901.5; see also Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724-25. A 

sentencing court must consider factors including the nature of the offense, the 

defendant’s age and character, and the defendant’s chances of reform. 

Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. Before deferring judgment or suspending 

sentence, the court must also consider, among other things, the defendant’s prior 

record and employment status. Id.

During the sentencing hearing, the district court imposed a sentence 

within the statutory limit. Thus, a strong presumption exists in its favor. State v. 

Johnson 513 N.W.2d 717, 718 (Iowa 1994). The district court considered the 

factors cited by Baker’s attorney, including Baker’s clean criminal history, her 

family situation, and the events that led to the assault. But the district court also 

expressed concern that Baker failed to take steps to resolve the confrontation 
4

before resorting to violence and the dangers of such criminal activity. In light of 

the totality of circumstances, the district court declined to defer judgment, and we 

do not find that decision to be clearly unreasonable or based upon untenable 

grounds. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725 (stating a court’s task on appeal is to 

determine if the district court’s decision was “clearly unreasonable or based on 

untenable grounds”). Rather, the district court fulfilled its role of exercising sound 

discretion to reach its sentence. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.