Opinion ID: 1825939
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Did trial court err in refusing to grant probation?

Text: Defendant asserts trial court abused its discretion in refusing to grant him probation and sentencing him to imprisonment in the Men's Reformatory at Anamosa for a period not to exceed eight years. Probation was recommended in a presentence investigation report submitted by Iowa Bureau of Community Corrections Services. At sentencing two of defendant's former business associates testified favorably concerning his probation potential. They indicated a willingness to employ him. Trial court's statement from the bench giving its reasons for refusing to grant probation and imposing imprisonment appear on three pages of the transcript. This procedure was approved in State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa 1975), follows ABA Standards, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures § 5.6(ii) (1968), and conforms to the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure which will be effective January 1, 1978. Acts 66 G.A. ch. 1245, ch. 1, Div. XIII Rules 22(3)(d) (1976) as amended, Acts 67 G.A. S.F. 289 § 66 (1977), see Iowa Legislative Service p. 284 (West Pub. Co. 1977) (The court shall state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.). The record of defendant's prior violence and threats of violence with the weapon used in this crime impressed trial court. This evidence was introduced at trial after defendant put in issue his reputation as a peaceful, law-abiding citizen. On prior occasions defendant had struck a minor with the revolver and had fired it into a bed occupied by his wife. We hold under this record trial court did not abuse its sentencing discretion in concluding defendant's rehabilitation and community protection could be achieved best by a period of incarceration. We affirm the judgment below. AFFIRMED.