Court Opinion

ID: 9895754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:06:35.946716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:02.764924
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-1639
                            Filed November 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DANIEL TODD LITTLE,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge.

      Daniel Little appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled

guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse, possession of

methamphetamine with intent to deliver, indecent contact with a child, and

prohibited person in possession of ammunition. AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                           2

CARR, Senior Judge.

       Daniel Little and the State entered into a plea agreement in which Little

would plead guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse, possession of

methamphetamine with intent to deliver, indecent contact with a child, and

prohibited person in possession of ammunition. Little determined it was in his “best

interest under these circumstances to accept responsibility for the acts” and “argue

for any legal sentence, potentially running all counts concurrent if the Court chose

to do so,” while “[t]he State [was] free to argue for consecutive sentences.”

       At sentencing, the defense noted Little “was using a lot of different types of

drugs and using them often” and “there’s a lot of things going on here with him that

involves his mental health,” but “[t]hose are things [he] is committed to trying to

figure out while incarcerated.” Little added, “Now that I’ve had the chance to be

sober and I’ve learned the mistakes I’ve made, I’ve taken responsibility for the

choices and the things that I’ve done.” Little requested “the opportunity and show

me the forgiveness that the others have and allow me to get the treatment and the

help that I need.” As “recognition of [Little’s] acceptance of responsibility,” the

State recommended the court run two of the sexual-abuse sentences consecutive

with each other and the other sentences concurrent, for a total sentence of fifty

years of incarceration with a mandatory thirty-five years before eligibility for parole.

       The district court considered relevant factors of Little’s age, employment

circumstances, family circumstances, criminal history, statements to the court,

circumstances of the crimes, chances for rehabilitation, and the need to protect the

community from further offenses. The court further stated:
                                         3

              All right. So the Court’s had an opportunity to review the
      presentence investigation. The Court has indeed reviewed the
      minutes of testimony, which were used in support of the defendant’s
      guilty pleas. The Court has heard from Mr. Little himself. The Court
      has heard the argument of counsel. And the Court has heard from
      the victim’s mother in this case.
              After doing all of those things, Mr. Little, you should
      understand that I believe that justice should always be tempered with
      mercy, and you’re asking for mercy from the Court. I’m a firm
      believer of that. However, Mr. Little, I also believe society’s highest
      obligation above all else is protecting its children.
              While I fully understand you’ve pled guilty to the counts you’ve
      pled guilty to, I agree with [the State] that it would be inappropriate
      for me to consider your federal charges. Therefore, I will not consider
      your federal charges or potential exposure in federal court.
              What [the victim’s mother] detailed in her victim impact
      statement was more than just the impact on the victim. She detailed
      the impact on her, her son, and not just in 2021 or 2022, but what
      that impact looks like potentially 5 or 10 or even 15 years down the
      road. So the crimes that you committed have a ripple effect, and the
      damage done very well may be irreparable.
              Mr. Little, I certainly understand that this disposition is not
      something that you wanted, but I believe it is the disposition that
      justice truly requires. I will commit you to the custody of the Director
      of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed 25 years
      for Count I, 25 years for Count II, 25 years for Count III, 25 years for
      Count IV, 2 years for Count V, and 5 years for Count VI. But for the
      fact that the State has chosen to limit its recommendations to 50
      years, Mr. Little, given the facts of this case, given your criminal
      history, I would have run every single one of these terms consecutive
      to each other.
              Given the State’s recommendations, Counts I and III shall be
      served consecutive to each other, but concurrent on the remaining
      counts in the trial information, which shall be served concurrent with
      each other as well, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed 50
      years. Mandatory minimum is 70 percent to be served on the
      consecutive terms pursuant to Iowa Code Section 902.12.

      On appeal,1 Little claims the court abused its discretion by “not adequately

consider the mitigating circumstances,” including “that [he] had been a substance

1 Because Little appeals his sentence, he has established good cause to appeal.

State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020).
                                           4

abuser for most of his life and was a daily methamphetamine user prior to his

arrest” and “had mental health problems prior to the crimes.”

       We review sentencing rulings for correction of errors at law. Damme, 944

N.W.2d at 103. “[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence

within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will

only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate

matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). While the court

must “consider all the circumstances of a particular case . . . , it is [not] required to

specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v.

Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (internal citation omitted). Indeed,

“the failure to acknowledge a particular sentencing circumstance does not

necessarily mean it was not considered.” Id. “Instead, we review a sentence for

an abuse of discretion based on the entire record, and look to see if the reasons

articulated by the trial court are sufficient to enable us to determine if an abuse of

discretion occurred.” Id. Here, the court noted it had considered the presentence

investigation report, defense counsel’s statements, Little’s statements, and the

statements of the victims’ mother—all of which referenced either Little’s substance

abuse, mental health, or both. On our review, we find the district court did not

abuse its discretion “on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or

unreasonable” in imposing Little’s sentence. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724.

We therefore affirm.

       AFFIRMED.