Court Opinion

ID: 9365965
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 17:03:49.167731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.531202
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                 No. 22-0833
                           Filed January 25, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRANDI KAYE SMITHSON,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson,

Judge.

      Brandi Kaye Smithson appeals the sentence sending her to prison.

AFFIRMED.

      Heidi Miller of Gribble, Boles, Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines, for

appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

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

GREER, Judge.

       Counting it as a third offense, Brandi Kaye Smithson operated a motor

vehicle while under the influence (OWI) of alcohol and pled guilty to that offense.1

In January 2022, Smithson filed the written plea agreement, providing that she

would plead guilty if the habitual offender enhancement was not imposed and if

she could be free to argue at sentencing for her desired sentence. Trouble is, she

did not get what she argued for and, instead, the district court sent her to prison

for five years. Smithson appeals from the sentence.2

       As a means to change her sentence, Smithson contends the district court

abused its discretion by sentencing her to prison rather than probation and

substance-abuse treatment, which she argued for at sentencing. We review a

sentence imposed for correction of errors at law. State v. Davis, 971 N.W.2d 546,

553 (Iowa 2022). “We will not reverse a sentence unless there is ‘an abuse of

discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.’” Id. (citation omitted).

       Here, the sentence imposed by the district court falls within the statutory

parameters, thus, we are to presume it is valid and only overturn for an abuse of

discretion or reliance on inappropriate factors. State v. Washington, 832 N.W.2d

650, 660 (Iowa 2013). In other words, it is up to Smithson to affirmatively show

the sentencing court relied upon improper evidence to overcome the presumptively

valid sentence. See State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa 2015). “[Judicial

decisions] deal in differing shades of gray, and discretion is needed to give the

1 Designated a class “D” felony, the charge of OWI, third offense, is a violation of
Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(c) (2020).
2 All parties agree that Smithson has good cause to challenge her sentence. See

Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020).
                                          3

necessary latitude to the decision-making process. This inherent latitude in the

process properly limits our review.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa

2002); see also Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d at 554 (“On our review, we do not decide the

sentence we would have imposed, but whether the sentence imposed was

unreasonable.”).

       Other than pointing out that the best rehabilitation for her is treatment that

she cannot receive in prison, Smithson identifies no other considerations made by

the district court to suggest that improper evidence or factors were part of the

sentencing court’s reasoning. And, the sentencing court addressed Smithson’s

position by noting that

       [M]y duty under the law is to review what’s available to me in terms
       of community resources and to determine what the appropriate
       rehabilitative plan for you would be.
               But I also must consider that the public needs to be protected.
       In doing so, I look at the seriousness of the crime, the [e]ffect this
       crime has on members of the community, your willingness to accept
       change and treatment, if needed, and what is available in the
       community to assist you in that process.
               . . . . The bottom line here, Ms. Smithson, is that you have not
       taken advantage of the community resources that you’ve had in the
       past. You have had four prior OWI[s]. That’s a bit staggering
       considering most people never get one, and most people who get
       one change their or modify their behavior. The fact that you’ve
       continued to get OWI[s] over the years is just hard to fathom.
               You’ve had previous substance abuse treatment with CADS
       under your prior OWI convictions. It hasn’t done any good. The
       bottom line is that you are a danger to the community, and the court
       finds that prison is the most appropriate alternatives here. You don’t
       qualify for the OWI continuum. And so the court is going to impose
       a sentence of incarceration here.

We do not find this reasoning to be untenable nor the sentence to be unreasonable

given the factors considered. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. And because
                                           4

Smithson failed to identify any improper factors considered by the sentencing court

or a defect in the procedure, we affirm.

       AFFIRMED.