Opinion ID: 1880734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Preparation of Substance Abuse Evaluation.

Text: Pursuant to Iowa Code section 321J.3, where a defendant is convicted of a second or subsequent OWI offense, the district court is required to order the preparation of a substance abuse evaluation prior to sentencing. We have previously recognized two exceptions to the requirement: (1) when the court receives the substantial equivalent of a substance abuse evaluation; and (2) when the public interest in securing an evaluation has been fully served. State v. Ruiter, 547 N.W.2d 226, 227 (Iowa 1996). While neither exception appears directly applicable here, we find the public interest exception embraces the circumstances of this case where the court did order the substance abuse evaluation in accordance with section 321J.3, but defendant did not cooperate with the order. We have explained that the public has an interest in the evaluation and possible treatment because it can benefit the public by aiding persons who, but for substance abuse, would make useful citizens who would pose no threat to society. State v. Squires, 545 N.W.2d 557, 559 (Iowa 1996). However, the benefit of an evaluation must be balanced against the public interest in the operation of an efficient justice system. If sentencing cannot occur until a defendant ordered to undergo a substance abuse evaluation complies with the order, an uncooperative defendant could delay sentencing. Such a delay is against the public interest. Under these circumstances, therefore, where the court ordered a substance abuse evaluation as mandated by section 321J.3 and instructed the defendant on how, when, and where to obtain one, but defendant did not comply with the order, we believe the public interest in securing an evaluation has been fully served. The court did not err in proceeding with sentencing without the benefit of a substance abuse evaluation.