IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 21-0101

Filed December 15, 2021

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MYCHAEL RICHARD PATTEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, John M. Wright, 

Judge.

Mychael Patten appeals his sentences, asserting the State breached the 

plea agreement. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2021).
2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

In November 2020, Mychael Patten pleaded guilty to: (Count 1) domestic 

abuse assault, strangulation with bodily injury; (Count 2) child endangerment, 

substantial risk; (Count 3) assault with a dangerous weapon; and (Count 4) false 

imprisonment. The plea results from a report by Patten’s wife that he assaulted

her, threatened her with a firearm, and confined her in their home all while their 

three-year-old daughter was present. As part of a plea agreement, Patten and the 

State jointly agreed to recommend suspended sentences to run consecutively for 

a total suspended term of incarceration of ten years. On January 8, 2021, the 

district court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Patten to terms of 

incarceration not to exceed five years for Count 1, two years for Count 2, two years 

for Count 3, and 365 days for Count 4 with credit for time served and the remaining 

time suspended. Counts 2 and 3 ran concurrently with each other and consecutive 

to Count 1, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed seven years. The 

suspended sentence of Count 4 also ran consecutively to the other sentences. 

Patten appeals, arguing the State breached the plea agreement through the 

prosecutor’s statements at sentencing.

1

We review a claim the State breached a plea agreement for correction of 

errors at law. State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369, 370 (Iowa 1998). “The relevant 

inquiry in determining whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement is 

 

1 A defendant does not have the right to appeal from a guilty plea unless “the 

defendant establishes good cause.” Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2021). Patten 

asserts he has good cause to appeal because he claims the State breached the 

plea agreement. See State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Iowa 2021) (finding 

good cause for appeal when the defendant claims the State breached the plea 

agreement). The State agrees Patten established good cause.
3

whether the prosecutor acted contrary to the common purpose of the plea 

agreement and the justified expectations of the defendant and thereby effectively 

deprived the defendant of the benefit of the bargain.” Boldon, 954 N.W.2d at 71 

(quoting State v. Frencher, 873 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)). “Where 

the prosecutor has agreed to make a particular sentencing recommendation, the 

prosecutor must do more than ‘simply inform[ ] the court of the promise the State 

has made to the defendant with respect to sentencing. The State must actually 

fulfill the promise.’” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Frencher, 873 N.W.2d at 

284).

At sentencing, the prosecutor explained the State’s recommendation:

Your Honor, the State is asking that the Court adopt the plea

agreement that is outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report 

that was agreed to by the parties.

For the Court’s information, the sole reason for this 

recommendation by the State is based on conversations with the

victim herself. And ordinarily that doesn’t necessarily drive the 

State’s recommendation, but based on the conversations with her 

and her sincere desire for the Defendant to be able to have a 

relationship with his daughter, she felt that that was of utmost 

importance and priority to give him this opportunity for a suspended 

sentence on these matters . . . .

. . . .

But for the Court’s information, that is the sole driving force 

and the reason for the State’s recommendation in this matter. 

Patten argues the prosecutor “implied her disapproval” of the recommended 

sentence by pointing to the victim’s wishes as “the sole driving force” behind the 

recommendation. See State v. Bearse, 748 N.W.2d 211, 218 (Iowa 2008) (“Our 

system of justice . . . does not allow prosecutors to make sentencing 

recommendations with a wink and a nod.”); see also State v. Horness, 600 N.W.2d 

294, 299 (Iowa 1999) (finding the prosecutor is required “to present the 
4

recommended sentences with his or her approval, to commend these sentences 

to the court, and to otherwise indicate to the court that the recommended 

sentences are supported by the State and worthy of the court’s acceptance”). 

In imposing Patten’s sentences, the district court noted it “considered the 

entire Presentence Investigation Report” and provided the following explanation to 

Patten:

You’re twenty-nine years old. You’re not a youthful offender. 

You do have a high school education. However, there are two 

factors that weigh heavily in my decision. One is your criminal 

history. And the fact that you were on probation for a felony at the 

time you committed these crimes clearly indicates to the Court that 

you had no intention of obeying the law.

While I understand how [your counsel] is trying to paint a 

picture of you complying with the terms of probation, he does admit

that there is a huge gap there, a hole in his argument on your behalf, 

because you committed these offenses while you were being

rehabilitated by the State of Iowa. So clearly probation was not 

effective.

And the other point that I would make is that these are very 

serious crimes. 

Patten’s counsel then clarified Patten was on probation for an aggravated 

misdemeanor2 and had no prior felony convictions. The court acknowledged it 

misspoke and continued:

[T]he conviction for which he was serving probation was of a serious 

nature. And regardless if it was an aggravated misdemeanor or a 

felony, the fact that he was on probation at the time that he 

committed these offenses clearly indicates to the Court that he has 

no ability or desire for that matter to abide by the terms and 

conditions of his probation. 

 

2 The Presentence Investigation Report states Patten was convicted of invasion of 

privacy in October 2019 and sentenced to two years of probation with a 

requirement that he register as a sex offender for ten years. 
5

The court’s thorough explanation makes clear the court considered the big 

picture in sentencing Patten to incarceration, regardless of how forcefully the 

prosecutor emphasized the State’s recommendation of a suspended sentence. 

Furthermore, the prosecutor never referred to the sentencing factors the court 

cited: Patten’s age, education, criminal history and probation violation, and the 

seriousness of his offenses. While the Presentence Investigation Report 

recommended incarceration, the prosecutor never mentioned this 

recommendation nor suggested the court ignore the State’s recommendation. At 

most, the prosecutor’s reference to the victim’s wishes justified a suspended 

sentence when the facts may otherwise call for incarceration, thereby providing 

the court with a reason to impose a suspended sentence. We cannot find the 

prosecutor explicitly or implicitly disapproved of the State’s recommendation of a 

suspended sentence or otherwise indicated incarceration would be more 

appropriate. See Boldon, 954 N.W.2d at 72 (finding “the prosecutor expressed no 

material reservation regarding the plea agreement”). Therefore, we reject Patten’s 

claim the State breached the plea agreement.

AFFIRMED.