IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1179

Filed March 8, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MICHAEL ANTHONY WEBSTER WHITE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice, 

Judge.

Michael White appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to 

charges of intimidation with a dangerous weapon and eluding. AFFIRMED.

Andrew J. Smith of Mack, Hansen, Gadd, Armstrong & Brown, P.C., 

Storm Lake, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2

DOYLE, Judge.

Michael White appeals the sentence imposed after he pled guilty to 

charges of intimidation with a dangerous weapon and eluding. He alleges the 

trial court abused its discretion and relied on an impermissible factor in 

sentencing him to a prison for his involvement in a drive-by shooting. 

We will overturn White’s sentence, which is within the statutory limits, if 

the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing it. See State v. Formaro, 

638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). “An abuse of discretion will not be found 

unless we are able to discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for 

reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id. White argues the 

court abused its discretion in failing to consider more than the nature of the 

offense in sentencing him to prison. See State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 

(Iowa 2015) (recognizing that the seriousness and gravity of the offense is an 

important factor in determining what sentence to impose but noting the nature of 

the offense cannot alone be determinative). He claims that “nearly the entirety of 

the [court’s] focus was on the nature of the offense,” and complains the court 

failed to discuss his age, character, and propensities or chances for reform. See 

id. at 554 (setting forth the relevant factors the court is to consider in imposing a 

sentence); see also Iowa Code § 907.5(1) (2016).

The record before us indicates the sentencing court considered more than 

just the nature of White’s offense in imposing his sentence. The court stated it 

had reviewed the presentence investigation (PSI) report and noted White’s 

statement of allocution. The court also cited White’s criminal history. The court 

then stated it was troubled most by “the very nature of the crime that was 
3

committed here,” noting that White had fired eleven .40 caliber rounds into an 

occupied apartment building that was next to a nursing home and within a block 

and one-half of a high school. The court stated it would not tolerate such 

behavior, citing the danger posed to the entire community. The court also 

discussed the rehabilitative opportunities available to White in prison. On this 

record, it is clear the sentencing court considered more than the nature of the 

offense in tailoring White’s sentence. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its 

discretion in sentencing White to prison. 

A sentence that is imposed within the statutory limits may also be 

overturned if the sentencing court considered an inappropriate matter. See 

Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724. One inappropriate matter the sentencing court 

may not consider is an unproven or unprosecuted offense. See State v. Jose, 

636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001). Because of the strong presumption in favor of a 

district court’s sentencing decision, a defendant must make an affirmative 

showing the sentencing court relied on an unproven offense. See id. 

At the sentencing hearing, White challenged a statement in the PSI report 

that said his probation had been revoked in April 2016. White claimed instead

his probation was completed in 2015. The court noted White’s objection to the 

PSI report. However, White argues it is “unclear” whether the court considered 

the contested probation revocation in sentencing him to prison. 

White has failed to make an affirmative showing that the sentencing court 

impermissibly relied on the contested probation revocation in sentencing him. 

Although the court noted White was not “a stranger to the criminal justice system” 

and had previously been on probation, there is no indication that the court was 
4

relying on the contested probation revocation rather than on his prior convictions. 

See id. at 41-42 (finding the sentencing court’s statements it relied on the 

defendant’s prior record and prior criminal history fell short of an affirmative 

showing that the sentencing court relied on unproven charges in imposing 

sentence where the defendant had “a history of numerous convictions”). Nothing 

in the record indicates the court considered the contested probation revocation 

as a factor in sentencing.

There is no indication that the sentencing court abused its discretion or 

relied on an impermissible factor in sentencing White. Accordingly, we affirm his 

sentence.

AFFIRMED.