Court Opinion

ID: 9850745
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:20.476414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.714001
License: Public Domain

TERNUS, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. In applying section 901.10, the court must make an initial determination that the current conviction is the defendant’s first drug conviction and then find an additional mitigating circumstance to justify a sentence less than the mandatory minimum. I see no real distinction between the conclusion that the defendant had no prior drug conviction, which is a prerequisite to the application of section 901.10, and his lack of prior involvement in drug dealing, which was used as a mitigating circumstance.
I believe the legislature intended that there be mitigating circumstances in addition to the fact that the current conviction is the defendant’s first documented involvement with drugs. I would vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for resentene-ing.
LARSON and ANDREASEN, JJ., join this dissent.