Court Opinion

ID: 9369312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:05:13.103938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.206818
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0130
                             Filed February 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

QUINTON MARCELLOUS MICKEY,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, David P.

Odekirk, Judge.

      Quinton Mickey appeals the sentences imposed for his convictions of

second-degree burglary and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, second

offense. APPEAL DISMISSED.

      Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                        2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

      Quinton Marcellous Mickey pled guilty to second-degree burglary and

domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, second offense. The district court

sentenced him to prison terms not exceeding ten years on the burglary count and

two years on the domestic-abuse count, to be served concurrently.

      On appeal, Mickey contends he “had the expectation that something less

than a maximum amount of incarceration would at least be considered.” Mickey is

faced with a procedural hurdle to consideration of his appeal.

      A defendant does not have a right of appeal from “[a] final judgment of

sentence” where “the defendant has pled guilty” to a crime other than a class “A”

felony and has not established good cause. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3)

(2022). “[G]ood cause exists to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea

when the defendant challenges his or her sentence rather than the guilty plea” and

the sentence imposed “was neither mandatory nor agreed to as part of [the] plea

bargain.” State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020); State v. Jenkins,

No. 21-1828, 2022 WL 16630805, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2022) (concluding

court was “without jurisdiction to hear the appeal” where “no one dispute[d] that

the sentence imposed was the same as that agreed upon by the parties”); see also

State v. McCarroll, No. 20-0641, 2021 WL 4592616, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6,

2021) (concluding the court “lack[ed] authority to decide [the defendant’s] claims”

in light of the defendant’s concession that “sentence imposed was the sentence

agreed upon by the parties.”).

      Mickey’s prison sentence was part of the plea bargain. The prosecutor

described the offer as a plea to “[b]urglary [s]econd [d]egree for a period of ten
                                       3

years” and “[a]ssault [d]omestic [s]econd for a period of two years,” with the

sentences running “concurrent with one another for a period of ten years.” Mickey

agreed to the offer, and his attorney characterized it as “acceptable.” Defense

counsel further conveyed Mickey’s wish to be sentenced immediately. The district

court accepted the agreement, advised Mickey of the penalties, and confirmed its

decision “to be bound by the agreement.” Because the prison sentence was an

agreed component of the plea bargain, we lack authority to decide Mickey’s

challenge to that sentence. The appeal is dismissed.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.