Court Opinion

ID: 9353320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-11 17:05:48.604142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:07:12.526442
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0185
                            Filed January 11, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ELIZABETH ANN LEGG,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Madison County, Patrick W.

Greenwood, Judge.

      A defendant appeals her sentence for credit-card fraud. AFFIRMED.

      Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                         2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

       Elizabeth Legg pleaded guilty to credit card fraud, an aggravated

misdemeanor.1 But she failed to appear for her June 2019 sentencing hearing.

So a bench warrant was issued. She was arrested in December 2021. One month

later, she asked for a suspended sentence. Instead, the district court imposed a

prison term not to exceed two years. She now alleges that punishment was “overly

harsh.” Because the court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm the sentence.

       “The sentencing court has broad discretion to impose the sentence it

determines is best suited to rehabilitate a defendant and protect society.”2 Legg’s

rehabilitation was front of mind for the sentencing court. The court explained:

“[W]hat’s most concerning to me is your extensive criminal record.” The court also

underscored Legg’s decision to abscond for more than two years. The court was

disappointed that Legg did not “come back to demonstrate voluntarily that [she]

had rehabilitated [herself].” The court believed that prison would help rehabilitate

Legg by assessing her substance-abuse and mental-health needs. What’s more,

the court told her: “[T]he fact that you absconded would suggest to me that

supervision in the community is simply not appropriate in your case, and so the

request for probation is denied.”

       Legg’s failure to accept responsibility was a legitimate sentencing

consideration.3 On top of that, the court considered her age of twenty-eight,

“somewhere between young and old.” And noted her “spotty work history.” The

1 Iowa Code § 715A.6(2)(c) (2017).
2  State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355 (Iowa 2022) (citing Iowa Code
section 901.5).
3 See State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83, 87 (Iowa 2005).
                                        3

court also cited her history of substance abuse and lack of a support system. All

in all, the court weighed the appropriate factors in reaching its sentencing

decision.4

      Legg emphasizes that her crime, unlawfully using her roommate’s debit

card, was “not a violent one” so community protection is not a concern. She also

asserts that she is “a more sober person” than before she went on the lam. On

those facts, Legg insists she was “a good candidate for probation.” Even if we

agreed, our job on appeal is not to second guess the sentencing court’s call.5

Rather, our limited role is to check whether its decision “was exercised on grounds

or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.”6 The court offered

valid reasons for imposing a prison sentence. Resentencing is unnecessary.

      AFFIRMED.

4 See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002).
5 State v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Iowa 2022).
6 Id.