Court Opinion

ID: 9383025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:15:19.570607+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.161605
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0490
                             Filed March 29, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MATTHEW ROBERT KOROCK,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Coleman McAllister,

Judge.

      A defendant appeals the revocation of his probation and deferred judgment.

AFFIRMED.

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

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                           2

GREER, Judge.

       In 2018, Matthew Korock pled guilty to burglary in the second degree.1 See

Iowa Code §§ 713.1, 713.5 (2018). After he pled guilty to the burglary charge but

before his April 2019 sentencing hearing, Korock was charged with and pled guilty

to driving while barred as a habitual offender. See id. § 321.561. For both charges,

he was given deferred judgments and placed on probation for three years, ending

in April 2022. Faced with a number of probation violations in March 2021, Korock

stipulated to having violated the terms of his probation. After having a number of

opportunities to set things right, in a combined probation violation hearing, the

district court revoked Korock’s probation and deferred judgments and imposed a

ten-year prison sentence for the burglary charge and a one-year sentence for

driving while barred. Korock now appeals.

       Korock argues the revocation of his deferred judgments and probation and

imposition of his sentences2 violates the constitutional bar against cruel and

unusual punishment. See U.S. Const. amend. VIII (“Excessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

inflicted.”). “We review alleged violations of state or federal constitutional rights de

novo.” State v. Harrison, 914 N.W.2d 178, 187–88 (Iowa 2018). A sentence within

1 In his own words at the 2019 sentencing hearing, Korock “broke into [his] ex-
girlfriend’s apartment and was shouting . . . and then [he] ended up taking some
swings at her boyfriend.”
2 Under Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022), a defendant does not have the

right to appeal “[a] conviction where the defendant has pled guilty” unless “the
defendant establishes good cause.” Because Korock is challenging the revocation
of his deferred judgment and the subsequent entry of a judgment of conviction and
sentence, he has good cause. See State v. Thompson, 951 N.W.2d 1, 5
(Iowa 2020).
                                          3

the statutory limits carries with it a strong presumption in its favor, so an abuse of

discretion will not be found unless the decision was exercised on grounds or for

reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. See State v. Formaro, 638

N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).

       Focusing on Korock’s theme that the sentences imposed are cruel and

unusual, we note that “[t]he principle that a punishment should be proportionate to

the crime is deeply rooted and frequently repeated in common-law jurisprudence,”

and “a criminal sentence must be proportionate to the crime for which the

defendant has been convicted.” Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284, 290 (1983).

The Supreme Court of the United States outlined three factors for courts to

consider when determining if a sentence is proportionate: “(i) the gravity of the

offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other

criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission

of the same crime in other jurisdictions.” Id. at 292. The first piece of this test—

balancing the offense with the penalty—is “sometimes referred to as the threshold

test.” State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 873 (Iowa 2009) (citing Solem, 463 U.S.

at 292). “If the sentence being reviewed does not ‘raise an inference of gross

disproportionality,’ then the inquiry ends and ‘[n]o further analysis is required.’”

Dorsey v. State, 975 N.W.2d 356, 364 (Iowa 2022) (alteration in original) (citation

omitted). It takes a “rare case” to cross this threshold and create “an inference of

gross disproportionality.” Ewing v. California, 538 U.S. 11, 30 (2003) (citation

omitted); accord Dorsey, 975 N.W.2d at 364 (“[T]he prohibition ‘gives rise to a

“narrow proportionality principle,” forbidding only extreme sentences that are

significantly disproportionate to the underlying crime.’” (citations omitted)).
                                        4

      Korock cites no authority to support his contention that his is the rare case

that could carry him over the threshold, nor any authority toward the second or

third prongs of the test were he to do so, as he only argues the sentence is too

harsh. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.903(2)(g)(3) (“Failure to cite authority in support of

an issue may be deemed waiver of that issue.”); Hyler v. Garner, 548

N.W.2d 864, 876 (Iowa 1996) (“[W]e will not speculate on the arguments [a party]

might have made and then search for legal authority and comb the record for facts

to support such arguments.”). So, we consider the issue waived.

      Finally, Korock also asks us to overturn State v. Criswell, 242

N.W.2d 259, 260 (Iowa 1976), which allows the district court to administer

consecutive sentences even if the crimes occurred within a single transaction

when the offenses were separate and distinct. But, “[w]e are not at liberty to

overturn Iowa Supreme Court precedent.” State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700

(Iowa 1990).

      Because Korock has waived his constitutional challenge and we are without

authority to overturn supreme court precedent, we affirm.

      AFFIRMED.