Court Opinion

ID: 9403632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:07:43.316686+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:08.364839
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 22-1781
                                 Filed June 21, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHARLES ADOLPH MIMMS,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from        the   Iowa   District   Court for   Cerro   Gordo County,

Rustin Davenport, Judge.

      Charles Mimms appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction.

AFFIRMED.

      Karmen R. Anderson of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for

appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Vogel, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                          2

BADDING, Judge.

       Charles Mimms appeals the sentence imposed on his conviction—following

an Alford plea1—for lascivious acts with a child. In challenging the court’s decision

to not impose a suspended prison sentence, he argues the district court

overlooked his “extensive pretrial incarceration” of 120 days. Given this “significant

punishment” he already received, Mimms asserts the court should have given

more weight to “other, less invasive options” for rehabilitation.       Mimms also

suggests the court merely cited “boilerplate reasons for imposing a sentence of

incarceration without any specific explanation in this case.”

       We review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law and “will not

reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some

defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724

(Iowa 2002). “Sentencing decisions . . . are cloaked with a strong presumption in

their favor.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (ellipsis in

original) (citation omitted). And our job is not to “second guess” the sentencing

court’s decision. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724.

       In pushing for imprisonment, the State highlighted the nature of the offense

against the three-year-old child, Mimms’s extensive criminal history, and the

recommendation in the presentence investigation report. That report detailed his

indeed extensive criminal history, family and employment circumstances, and prior

interventions aimed at rehabilitation.        In his version of the events to the

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (“An individual accused of
crime may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of
a prison sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his participation in the
acts constituting the crime.”).
                                          3

presentence investigator, Mimms stated: “I don’t blame anyone for this except the

system itself.” In turn, Mimms requested a suspended sentence and probation

given his past “success[] in the community” and his prospects for employment.

       In reaching its sentencing decision, the court explained as follows:

       The law of Iowa requires the court impose a sentence that will best
       provide for the defendant’s rehabilitation, protect the community, and
       deter others from committing similar crimes. In considering these
       matters, I consider your age, your attitude, your prior criminal history,
       employment, financial and family circumstances, nature of the
       offense, and—the recommendations of the parties, and the ability to
       be rehabilitated through community services.
              I’ve considered the request for a suspended sentence.
       However, given the prior criminal record, given the nature of the
       offense, given the recommendations of the presentence
       investigation report, I find that a ten-year prison term not suspended
       is appropriate.

And in its written sentencing order, the court noted its consideration of Mimms’s

       age, attitude, criminal history, and employment, financial and family
       circumstances, as well as the nature of the offense, including
       whether a weapon or force was used in the commission of the
       offense, the recommendations of the parties, and other matters
       reflected in the court file and record, including the presentence
       investigation report, for the protection of society and rehabilitation of
       defendant.

       Turning to Mimms’s arguments on appeal, we first note that Mimms must

affirmatively show an abuse of discretion or defect in sentencing procedure to

overcome the presumption of validity. See State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 572

(Iowa 2018). As to the claim that the court failed to take the time he already served

into account, the court considered the presentence investigation report, which

stated that Mimms had been incarcerated since his arrest, as did the court file

itself. So Mimms has not affirmatively shown the court abused its discretion on

this point.   Furthermore, Mimms frames this consideration as a mitigating
                                           4

sentencing factor, and the court need not specifically acknowledge each such

factor. See State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). To the extent

that Mimms argues the court did not consider options for rehabilitation short of

prison, the court stated it had considered Mimms’s prospects for rehabilitation

through services in the community.

         As to Mimms’s claim that the court failed to provide a sufficient explanation

for its sentencing decision, the court expressly considered the presentence

investigation report; the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation; protection of the

community from further offenses; Mimms’s age, criminal history, and employment

and family circumstances; and the nature of the offense.            See Iowa Code

§§ 901.5, 907.5(1) (2022); State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554–55 (Iowa 2015).

We find the court’s statements about its sentencing decision to be sufficient and

affirm the sentence imposed. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa

2015).

         AFFIRMED.