Court Opinion

ID: 9403635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:07:45.280771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.825890
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1160
                              Filed June 21, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTRELL MARLIN ROBERTS JACKSON,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Andrea J. Dryer,

Judge.

      Antrell Jackson appeals the terms of probation imposed in his criminal

cases. AFFIRMED.

      Stuart Hoover, East Dubuque, Illinois, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
                                          2

AHLERS, Judge.

         Antrell Jackson received suspended, concurrent sentences after pleading

guilty to forgery, theft in the third degree, and theft in the fourth degree in two

cases.     The sentences imposed were the agreed-upon sentences, with one

exception. Jackson argued for unsupervised probation, while the State argued for

supervised probation. The district court imposed supervised probation, primarily

citing Jackson’s lengthy criminal history. On appeal, Jackson does not claim the

district court considered improper factors in imposing supervised probation.1 He

simply reargues why he thinks unsupervised probation would be better—

arguments the district court noted that it understood when it imposed supervised

probation—and contends the decision to impose supervised probation amounts to

an abuse of discretion.

         Sentencing decisions are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor

and will only be overturned upon showing of an abuse of discretion or the

consideration of improper factors. State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 73 (Iowa

2021). Neither has been shown here. A full opinion would not augment or clarify

existing case law, so we affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e)

(providing memorandum opinions may be used when “[a] full opinion would not

augment or clarify existing case law”).

         AFFIRMED.

1 Jackson has good cause to appeal because he only challenges his sentences.
See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022) (requiring defendants establish good cause
to appeal following a guilty plea to offenses other than class “A” felonies); State v.
Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (“We hold that good cause exists to
appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant challenges his
or her sentence rather than the guilty plea.”).