Court Opinion

ID: 9895750
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:06:32.279551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:01.969030
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1932
                            Filed November 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMIE GUMM,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Adria Kester, Judge.

      Jamie Gumm appeals his sentences for possession of less than five grams

of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and driving while barred. AFFIRMED.

      Eric W. Manning of Manning Law Office, P.L.L.C., Urbandale, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., Greer, J., and Potterfield, S.J.*

      *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2023).
                                          2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       Jamie Gumm appeals his sentences for possession of less than five grams

of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and driving while barred. Upon review,

we affirm.

I.     Background Facts and Proceedings

       Pursuant to a plea agreement, Gumm pleaded guilty to possession of less

than five grams of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa

Code section 124.401(1)(c) (2022). On the same day, Gumm also pleaded guilty

to driving while barred, in violation of section 321.561. The district court sentenced

him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years for his

methamphetamine conviction and an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to

exceed two years for his driving conviction, and it ordered the sentences to be

served concurrently. In exchange for his guilty plea to the drug charge, the State

agreed to dismiss an ongoing criminal conduct charge.             Gumm appealed,

challenging his sentences. Gumm claims because the presentence investigation

report (PSI) recommended probation, the district court abused its discretion in

imposing his sentence and his sentences are grossly disproportionate.

II.    Standard of Review

       We review a district court’s sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.

State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). The legality of a sentence is

reviewed for corrections of error at law. State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440, 444 (Iowa

2006); see also Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.            When the defendant mounts a

constitutional challenge to an allegedly illegal sentence, the standard of review is
                                          3

de novo. State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 639 (Iowa 2012); State v. Bruegger,

773 N.W.2d 862, 869 (Iowa 2009).

III.   Abuse of Discretion

       Gumm first asserts the district court abused its discretion in ordering a

prison term for each of his convictions, rather than sentencing him to “probation

with some drug treatment.” “Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked

with a strong presumption in their favor.” Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225. Where a

defendant fails to assert an imposed sentence is outside statutory limits, the

sentence will only be set aside in the case of an abuse of discretion. See id. “An

abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion

on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.”

Id.

       Gumm bears a heavy burden in establishing the district court abused its

sentencing discretion, and he fails to meet that burden here. In imposing sentence,

the court noted the nature of the offenses, Gumm’s family circumstances, his “long

history” of substance abuse, his “very significant” criminal history, and his “lack of

education or employment.” The court observed “several attempts at rehabilitation”

had been provided to Gumm in the past, including financial obligations, probation,

and placement in a residential correctional facility. The court determined “those

efforts have not resulted in protecting the community because [Gumm] continued

to commit other offenses either while on probation or while this charge in the

[felony] case was pending.” After considering the available sentencing options,

the court imposed the sentences it felt best addressed Gumm’s situation. The

sentences are within the boundaries permitted by statute.             Gumm’s mere
                                             4

disagreement with the sentences imposed, without more, is insufficient to establish

abuse of discretion by the district court.

IV.    Cruel and Unusual: Gross Disproportionality

       Gumm asserts that his sentences are grossly disproportionate to his crimes.

In determining whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate, Iowa courts apply

the test laid out by the United States Supreme Court in Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S.

277, 290–92 (1983). This three-step test analyzes: (i) the gravity of the offense as

weighed against the harshness of the penalty imposed; (ii) sentences imposed in

Iowa for similar crimes; and (iii) sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for the

same crime. Solem, 463 U.S. at 290–92. The first step in this analysis is referred

to as the threshold test. See, e.g., Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d at 873. “If, and only if,

the threshold test is satisfied, a court then proceeds to steps two and three of the

analysis.” Oliver, 812 N.W.2d at 647.

       Gumm fails to satisfy the threshold test. Although the PSI in this case

recommended probation, the district court was not required to follow its

recommendation. The district court’s only duty is to issue a penalty within the

bounds prescribed by the legislature. The sentences imposed here are within the

statutory limits. Gumm is a recidivist offender with an extensive criminal history.

He has been afforded numerous opportunities to engage in community-based

rehabilitation, and these efforts have all been for naught.

       Gumm’s sentences are not grossly disproportionate, and the district court

did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.

       AFFIRMED.