IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-0679

Filed December 6, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ALAN TROY MCDOWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Gregory A. Hulse, 

Judge.

A defendant challenges his conviction and sentence. AFFIRMED.

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

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

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and McDonald, JJ.
2

MCDONALD, Judge.

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alan McDowell pleaded guilty to possession 

of marijuana with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) 

(2016). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed to dismiss a second count 

and recommend a suspended sentence and probation. The district court rejected 

the joint recommendation and sentenced McDowell to a term of incarceration not 

to exceed five years. McDowell timely filed this appeal. 

McDowell challenges his conviction, contending it should be vacated 

because the prosecutor breached the parties’ plea agreement. McDowell 

contends the prosecutor breached the parties’ plea agreement when the 

prosecutor referenced McDowell’s criminal history at the time of sentencing and 

contends his plea counsel was ineffective in not objecting to the breach. On de 

novo review, see State v. Frencher, 873 N.W.2d 281, 284 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015), 

we conclude the argument is without merit. Plea counsel had no duty to object to 

counsel’s statement because no breach of the plea agreement occurred. The 

prosecutor referenced the defendant’s criminal history to provide context for the 

sentencing recommendation while at the same time making a strong 

recommendation for a suspended sentence. See id. at 285 (concluding there was 

no breach where the prosecutor discussed criminal history “only to provide context 

to the sentencing recommendation”); see also State v. Schlachter, 884 N.W.2d 

782, 786 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (“The correct recitation of Schlachter’s criminal 

record was not a distraction from the prosecutor's recommendation, but 

strengthened it by alerting the court the prosecutor was aware of Schlachter’s 

criminal record and was making the recommendation with that knowledge.”). 
3

Indeed, given the defendant’s extensive criminal history, which the district court 

described as “one of the longest criminal records [it had] ever seen going back 30 

years,” it was necessary for the parties, including the prosecutor, to acknowledge 

the defendant’s criminal history to explain the sentencing recommendation for a 

suspended sentence.

McDowell also contends the district court abused its discretion in imposing 

sentence. We review sentences within statutory limits for abuse of discretion. See 

State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 10 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Here the court considered 

only relevant statutory factors and no impermissible factors in imposing sentence. 

See Iowa Code § 907.5. The court imposed a sentence within the statutory limits. 

Other than mere disagreement with the sentence, McDowell identifies no abuse of 

discretion, and we find none. We reject McDowell’s challenge to his sentence. 

We affirm the defendant’s conviction and sentences without further opinion. 

See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26.

AFFIRMED.