IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 20

- 0225 Filed February 17, 2021

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

LANCE LAVERN McIVER , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda
,
District Associate Judge.

A defendant appeals his concurrent sentences for domestic abuse assault
and going armed with intent

. AFFIRMED.

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C.
, Des Moines , for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden , Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.

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

TABOR , Judge

. Lance McIver pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault and going armed

with intent. The district court sentenced McIver to an indeterminate prison term of
five years for going armed and two years for the assault, to be served conc urrently.
The district court cited the recommendation by the p resentence i nvestigation (PSI)
report, McIver’s criminal record, and his lack of remorse in support of its decision.
Finding no abuse of discretion in the prison sentence , we affirm

. 1

McIver swung an ax at his girlfriend’s car, breaking the windows and

w indshield, while she sat in the driver’s seat. The State charged him with domestic
abuse assault with intent to inflict serious injury, an aggravated misdemeanor, in

violation of Iowa Code sec tion 708.2A (2)(c) (2019)
, and going armed with intent, a

class “ D ” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.8

. McIver pleaded guilty to

both counts in December 2019. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed

two other counts

. At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor urged that the proper sentence

was incarceration

. The PSI also included that recommendation. 2 In contrast,

McIver sought a probationary sentence . But he also acknowledged his fear of

1 We review a sentence for the correction of legal error

. State v. Formaro , 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We will not reverse u nless the re cord reveals “an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Damme , 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted)

. On appellate review, we do not imagine the sentence we would have imposed; instead, we decide whether the sen tence imposed was unreasonable. Id. at 107

. 2 The PSI report pointed to McIver’s substance abus e issues, his moderate to h igh chance of recidivism, and his unwillingness to participate in community

- based services.3

being unable to successfully complete probation because of his “ seizure disorder
[ and ] not being able to work

. ”

T he district court rejected McIver’s request for probation, sentencing him to
concurrent terms not to exceed five years and two years for the two offenses. In
support of that decision, the court considered a multitude of factors

. 3 Prime among

th em was McIver’s lack of remorse. See State v. Knight , 701 N.W.2d 83, 88 (Iowa
2005) (holding lack of remorse was “highly pertinent” to defendant’s need for

rehabilit ation and chances of reform). The court mentioned the negative attitude
McIver displayed in the PSI report. For instance, w hen asked whether he thought
his conviction was fair, McIver answered , “No. Coercion, bullied, [and] t rapped.”

In further suppor t of the sentence, t he court cited McIver’s criminal record
containing three previou s domestic abuse charges

. Recognizing he had been
convicted of a lesser charge each time, the court stated that, nonetheless, McIver’s

record demonstrate d a pattern of “la ck of control” and “inability t o control his

temper

. ” McIver acknowledged his “ temper problems” when addressing the
sentencing court

. He told the court: “ it ’ s really hard for me to control things during
incidents with high emotional value. ”
Despite those concessions, McIver now appeals his prison sentence. 4

3 A court “ should weigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the att ending circum stances, defendant’ s age, character and propensitie s[,] and chances of his reform.” State v. Headley

, 926 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2019) (alteration in original) (citation omitted)

. 4 Under Iowa Code section 814.6 (2020) , without good cause, defendant s cann ot appeal a conviction following a guilty plea . Good cause exists when a defendant challenges the sentence rather than the plea. Damme , 944 N.W.2d at 105. M cIver is challenging his sentence. Thus, he has good cause to appeal.4

In this appeal, McIver does not contend that the district court imposed a

sentence outside of the statutory parameters

. Nor does he suggest the court
considered improper factors. I nstead
, McIver argues the court abused its
discretion by sentencing him to prison instead of granting probation. “[T]h e
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 be overturned
for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters. ” Formaro
,
638 N.W.2d at 724

. Here, the prison sentence was reasonable given McIver’s
attitude and history

. T he district court articulated s ound reasons for its decision
, including McIver’s lack of remorse and his criminal record.

T he court properly exercised its discretion in denying probation

. Thus, we

affirm the prison sentence

.
AFFIRMED