IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-1346

Filed June 7, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LOREN ANTON GOODWIN III,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers, 

District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty. 

AFFIRMED.

Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for 

appellant.

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

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2

VOGEL, Presiding Judge.

Loren Goodwin III appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty 

to possession of methamphetamine, second offense, and eluding, in violation of 

Iowa Code sections 124.401(5) and 321.279(2) (2016), both aggravated 

misdemeanors. The plea agreement called for the State to dismiss other 

pending charges and to make a sentencing recommendation of a two-year 

suspended sentence on each conviction, to run concurrently, with credit for time 

served and two years’ probation along with the applicable minimum fines, 

surcharges, and court costs. The pleas were not conditioned on the court’s 

acceptance. 

After accepting the guilty pleas, the court ordered the preparation of a

presentence investigation (PSI) report, which recommended probation with 

placement in a residential correctional facility and mental-health and substanceabuse treatment. At sentencing, the court rejected the recommended sentence 

under the plea agreement and the PSI, and instead it imposed a two-year term of 

incarceration on each conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively to each 

other and consecutive to the sentence for an offense committed in another 

county, along with the minimum fines, surcharges, and court costs. 

Goodwin appeals claiming the court abused its discretion in not ordering 

probation in accordance with the plea agreement and the recommendation of the 

PSI, and also for running the sentences consecutively in light of the fact the 

eluding and possession of methamphetamine occurred at the same time. 

“[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 
3

be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate 

matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). An abuse of 

discretion occurs only when “the decision was exercised on grounds or for 

reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id. 

When imposing the sentence, the district court stated: 

Mr. Goodwin, my goals with respect to sentencing are to 

provide for your rehabilitation and protection of the community. In 

trying to achieve those goals, to the extent these details have been 

made known to me, I have taken into account the 

recommendations of the parties, your age, your employment history 

and circumstances and goals, your educational background, your 

family circumstances and obligations, your ridiculous criminal 

history, your appearance and demeanor here in the courtroom, 

your substance abuse issues and needs, your mental health issues 

and needs, the nature of the offense and facts and circumstances 

surrounding it, and the other information presented here today in 

this hearing, as well as in the Presentence Investigation Report. 

. . . .

. . . The reasons for consecutive sentences are as follows:

First of all, they are separate and distinct crimes. Even the 

two crimes in this case, the possession of methamphetamine, 

second offense, charge was unrelated to the eluding, although it 

might have been an incentive for the eluding. It is a separate and 

distinct crime, and separate punishments are appropriate, and 

obviously those two crimes would also be appropriately separately 

punished from the punishment imposed in your Boone County 

case. Additionally, I believe consecutive sentences are appropriate 

because of your criminal history, including prior terms in prison that 

have apparently not deterred you from continuing to engage in 

criminal conduct. You have had a fairly unbroken string of criminal 

behavior since 1997. And unlike some people, it doesn’t seem to 

be getting better as you get older, as the nature of the—as the 

crimes just continue. I also think consecutive sentences are 

appropriate because of the dangerous nature of the criminal 

conduct involved in this case and your effort to avoid responsibility 

for your drug crime by eluding law enforcement and exposing the 

public and law enforcement to injury or death because of your 

criminal behavior. And consecutive sentences are also appropriate 

as part of the overall sentencing plan providing for your 

rehabilitation and protection of the community.

In terms of whether to suspend or not suspend the 

sentences that I have imposed here, Mr. Goodwin, I have 
4

considered all the factors I mentioned previously, whether I have 

gone into detail about them or not, and obviously the reasons for 

the consecutive sentences also come into play in terms of deciding 

whether to suspend the sentence or not. I have also taken into 

account your history of lack of success on probation. There has 

been numerous examples in your criminal history where you have 

not successfully complied with probation. Your reference to the fact 

that you were scared and didn’t know what to do when the police 

tried to stop you is unavailing. The answer to that question is very 

easy. You stop and take the punishment for whatever it is that you 

were doing that you were afraid of getting caught doing. So for you 

to elude law enforcement was inexcusable. In terms of your stated 

intention to get substance abuse and mental health evaluation and 

treatment, I agree that those things are needed and those are good 

things that you are trying to accomplish, but I am also well aware of 

the fact that you had ample opportunity over the course of the last 

nineteen years while you have been building up this criminal history 

to have that dawn on you, that you need that help or whatever you 

need to motivate you to be law abiding, but you have not taken 

advantage of that opportunity and have continued to commit 

crimes. And so the request to suspend your sentence is denied. 

We discern no improper consideration, nor do we detect an unreasonable 

or untenable reason, for imposing prison terms and running the two-year prison 

terms consecutively. See State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) 

(noting the district court is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of 

mitigation urged by a defendant [and] the failure to acknowledge a particular 

sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered”). We 

affirm the district court’s sentencing order.

AFFIRMED.