Court Opinion

ID: 9959015
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 16:05:53.211991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:23.017638
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 23-1300
                               Filed April 10, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTHONY GEORGE GARNER JR.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. Van Marel,

Judge.

      Anthony Garner Jr. appeals his sentences after pleading guilty to three

criminal charges. AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                          2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

       Anthony Garner Jr. appeals his sentences after pleading guilty to three

criminal charges.1    He contends the district court abused its discretion by

sentencing him to incarceration rather than suspending his sentences. Because

Garner has not shown the sentencing court abused its discretion, we affirm.

       The State charged Garner with seven crimes, including two counts of

attempted murder, after he shot two people in January 2023. Garner entered

written guilty pleas to assault causing serious injury, assault causing bodily injury,

and carrying a dangerous weapon while intoxicated, and the State dismissed the

remaining charges.       At the sentencing hearing, the State recommended

consecutive sentences of incarceration while Garner asked the court to suspend

his sentences. Instead, the court ordered Garner to serve concurrent sentences

for a total term of five years in prison. Garner appeals.

       We review Garner’s sentences for correction of errors at law. See Damme,

944 N.W.2d at 103. Because his sentences fall within the statutory limits, we

presume they are valid and will overturn them only if the district court has abused

its discretion or relied on inappropriate sentencing factors. See State v. Gordon,

998 N.W.2d 859, 862 (Iowa 2023). The sentencing court abuses its discretion if it

       fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received
       significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or
       irrelevant factor, or considers only appropriate factors but
       nevertheless commits a clear error of judgment by arriving at a
       sentence that lies outside the limited range of choice dictated by the
       facts of the case.

1 Because “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,”
State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020), we proceed to the merits.
                                         3

State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372, 385 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted).

       Garner contends the court abused its discretion by sentencing him based

solely on the nature of his offenses. See State v. DeWitt, 426 N.W.2d 678, 680

(Iowa Ct. App. 1988) (“The trial court may not base its sentencing decision solely

on one factor, including the nature of the offense.”). He also argues that other

factors2 show “probation should have been the appropriate—if not the default—

sentence.” These factors include the six months he had spent in jail at the time of

sentencing, his full-time employment, his education, and having “virtually no

criminal history” apart from two ten-year-old convictions for possessing alcohol and

marijuana as a minor.

       We turn to the reasons the court provided for imposing Garner’s sentences.

The court began by noting the goals of sentencing are rehabilitation of the

defendant and protection of the community.        See Iowa Code § 901.5 (2023)

(stating that the court must consider the sentences authorized by law and select

the one that “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the

defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the

defendant and others”). It determined that Garner’s charges “are too serious” for

probation, which would not protect the community or rehabilitate Garner. But the

court declined to impose consecutive sentences. Instead, it found that concurrent

sentences would deter Garner from future criminal activity while inspiring him “to

be successful” and “work towards accomplishing [his] life goals.” The court noted

2 Although the sentencing court must “consider all the circumstances of a particular

case,” it need not “specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a
defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
                                         4

Garner is young and will remain so when released from prison. It then concluded

by observing that although Garner’s convictions and sentences are obstacles he

must overcome, they are not insurmountable:

      [I]f you make the right decisions there is no reason why you cannot
      go out there and have some real success with your life. And that’s
      what everybody wants you to do. Nobody wants you to fail at this
      and nobody wants you to go back to prison. We want you to learn
      from this experience and put yourself in a position where you do a
      better job. And granted in the short term, especially when you get
      out, your life is going to be harder than it needs to be, and it’s going
      to be harder than people that don’t have criminal records, but that’s
      because of some poor decisions you made when you committed
      these offenses. But you can overcome those difficulties and you can
      go out there and you can be successful.

      Garner has not shown the sentencing court abused its discretion by

sentencing him to serve concurrent terms of incarceration. The court did not base

its sentencing decision solely on the nature of Garner’s offenses. Instead, the

court considered the nature of his offenses along with other relevant factors and

selected sentences it believed would balance the need to rehabilitate Garner while

also protecting the community. Because the court exercised its discretion by

imposing concurrent sentences of incarceration, we affirm.

      AFFIRMED.