Opinion ID: 1923817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did trial court abuse its discretion in declining to order defendant's commitment for medical treatment?

Text: At his sentencing hearing defendant requested that he be committed for medical treatment under section 204.409(2) as an abuser of drugs, and he presented evidence on this issue. After hearing the evidence, trial court found defendant was a chronic abuser of marijuana, but in the exercise of its discretion refused to commit defendant to a treatment facility. The court found that the defendant's prime motivation for a last-minute treatment request was probably the desire to avoid the mandatory sentence, and that defendant's use of drugs was on again, off again. The court observed that abstinence, supervision, and monitoring could be had in a penal setting as well as in a hospital. We think trial court could consider the deterrent effect of prompt imprisonment and the treatment available to defendant at a prison facility. We hold trial court's decision not to commit under section 204.409(2) was not an abuse of discretion. See State v. Grimme, 274 N.W.2d 331, 338 (Iowa 1979); State v. Prothero, 242 N.W.3d 304, 306 (Iowa 1976); State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa 1975).