IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 15-0653

Filed July 27, 2016

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MARIAH MAE WOLFE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Mary Jane 

Sokolovske, Judge.

Mariah Wolfe appeals the district court’s revocation of her probation.

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Zachary S. Hindman of Mayne, Arneson, Hindman, Hisey & Daane, Sioux 

City, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

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

BOWER, Judge.

Mariah Wolfe appeals the district court’s revocation of her probation, 

claiming the district court abused its discretion. Wolfe also claims the district 

court erred in sentencing her to prison despite her mental illness and substantial 

compliance with the terms of probation. Finally, Wolfe claims the district court 

erred in failing to reduce the civil penalty initially ordered by the amount of her 

suspended fine in accordance with Iowa Code section 908.11(5) (2013). We 

affirm the district court’s revocation of Wolfe’s probation and subsequent 

imposition of a prison sentence. We vacate and remand the civil penalty and fine 

portions of her sentence.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On April 12, 2013, Wolfe was charged with burglary in the third degree 

and theft in the second degree. On May 7, pursuant to a plea agreement, Wolfe 

pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 

713.1 and 713.6A. The district court accepted Wolfe’s guilty plea, granted her 

request for a deferred judgment, and placed her on probation for a term of three 

years.

The State filed an application to revoke Wolfe’s probation on January 15, 

2015. A hearing was held on April 6 and April 9. Wolfe admitted to various 

violations of her probation including, but not limited to, repeated consumption of 

controlled substances, failure to comply with the terms of drug court, failure to 

maintain employment, failure to follow through with mental health treatment, 

driving while suspended, and missing appointments with her probation officer.
3

The district court found Wolfe violated the terms of her probation and 

revoked her deferred judgment and probation. The district court sentenced 

Wolfe to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed five years and 

imposed a suspended fine of $750. 

II. Standard of Review

Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of 

errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 

(Iowa 2002). “The decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence 

within the statutory limit 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. An abuse of discretion will 

not be found unless we are able to discern the decision was exercised on 

grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. 

Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995).

III. Analysis

A. Error Preservation

The State claims Wolfe has not preserved error on any claim concerning 

whether the State proved she violated the terms of her probation and deferred 

judgment, nor whether Wolfe’s mental illness negated her culpability for her 

subsequent probation violations. 

“If the court’s ruling indicates that the court considered the issue and 

necessarily ruled on it, even if the court’s reasoning is ‘incomplete or sparse,’ the 

issue has been preserved.” Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856, 864 (Iowa 

2012) (citation omitted). “The claim or issue raised does not actually need to be 
4

used as the basis for the decision to be preserved, but the record must at least 

reveal the court was aware of the claim or issue and litigated it.” Id.

At the probation revocation hearing, after admitting to violating her 

probation, Wolfe asked for an alternate sentence in light of her mental health 

problems—continuing probation or placement in a treatment facility. Wolfe’s 

mental illness was raised and considered, and as a result, error was preserved. 

See State v. Pickett, 671 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Iowa 2003).

B. Revocation and Sentence

Wolfe claims the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider 

her mental illness and substantial compliance with her probation when revoking 

her probation and imposing a prison sentence.

At the revocation hearing, Wolfe provided testimony regarding her mental 

health and the course of proceedings throughout her probation. The district court 

determined all viable alternatives had been exhausted and incarceration was the 

most appropriate sentence.

In addressing probation violations, the sentencing court has four options, 

including continuing the probation or revoking “the probation . . . and requir[ing]

the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or any lesser sentence, and, if 

imposition of sentence was deferred, . . . impos[ing] any sentence which might 

originally have been imposed.” Iowa Code § 908.11(4). The court must examine 

“all pertinent information” to determine an appropriate sentence that will provide 

the best opportunity for rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the 

community. Id. § 901.5; State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa 2015). 

Considerations may include, but are not limited to, prior convictions, mental 
5

health, substance abuse history, and the nature of the offense committed. Iowa 

Code § 907.5(1)(a)–(g).

After consideration, we find, as the district court found, Wolfe has 

repeatedly violated the terms of her probation and she lacks the will to conform 

her behavior to the requirements of probation in the future. Wolfe’s mental 

illness and temporary compliance with the terms of her probation are insufficient 

to overcome the harm Wolfe caused, and would continue to cause, to herself and 

others. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning and affirm the 

district court’s revocation of Wolfe’s probation and subsequent prison sentence. 

C. Civil Penalty

Wolfe claims, and the State concedes, the district court erred in assessing 

a $750 civil penalty without reducing it by the amount of the fine imposed when 

judgment was imposed. Wolfe claims, because the district court waived the $750 

penalty when it granted her a deferred judgment, the penalty should be reduced 

to zero. The State acknowledges the district court imposed an illegal sentence 

when it waived the civil penalty upon granting a deferred judgment in 2013. 

Iowa Code section 902.9(e) requires class “D” felons to be “sentenced to a 

fine of at least seven hundred fifty dollars but not more than seven thousand five 

hundred dollars.” “If the court revokes the probation of a defendant who received 

a deferred judgment and imposes a fine, the court shall reduce the amount of the 

fine by an amount equal to the amount of the civil penalty previously assessed 

against the defendant.” Id. § 908.11(5). Finding no authority allowing the waiver 

of this civil penalty, we conclude the district court must determine the amount of 
6

the civil penalty imposed upon the initial grant of the deferred judgment.1 

Following determination of the amount, the district court must reduce the 

imposed penalty pursuant to Iowa Code section 908.11(5).

IV. Conclusion

We affirm the district court’s revocation of Wolfe’s probation and 

imposition of a prison sentence. We vacate the imposition and suspension of the 

civil penalty and remand to the district court for a hearing to determine the 

amount of the civil penalty. See, e.g., State v. Buchanan, No. 13-1999, 2015 WL 

162028, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2015) (vacating the void portion of a 

sentence and remanding for resentencing).

AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

 

1 See, e.g., State v. Nail, 743 N.W.2d 535, 541–44 (Iowa 2007) (allowing suspension of 

civil penalty); State v. Williams, No. 12-2178, 2013 WL 3872931, at *2, (Iowa Ct. App. 

July 14, 2013) (declining to find “suspension” of fine was the equivalent to “waiver”); 

State v. Blagg, No. 06-0794, 2008 WL 375245, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 13, 2008) 

(finding the district court has discretion to suspend a civil penalty).