Court Opinion

ID: 9393499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 15:04:54.725271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.620221
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-1409
                               Filed May 10, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JORDAN GARRETT MCKIM CRAWFORD,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Lucy Gamon,

Judge.

      Jordan McKim Crawford appeals the imposition of a seventy-percent

mandatory minimum sentence. AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson and Nick Siefert, Assistant

Attorneys General, and Kadison Roberts, Law Student, for appellee.

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

BOWER, Chief Judge.

       Jordan McKim Crawford appeals the mandatory minimum sentence

imposed for his conviction of robbery in the second degree. Finding no abuse of

discretion, we affirm.

       In 2018, Crawford participated in a series of offenses involving robbery and

selling drugs. A jury convicted Crawford of ongoing criminal conduct and robbery

in the first degree. State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Iowa 2022). In 2022,

the supreme court reversed his convictions, vacated his sentences, and remanded

the case to the district court to enter judgment convicting him of robbery in the

second degree and for resentencing. Id. at 526.

       On remand, the district court complied with the supreme court’s instruction.

The court imposed a seventy-percent mandatory minimum as part of Crawford’s

sentence.1 Crawford appeals, asserting the district court abused its discretion “by

failing to take into account [Crawford]’s very minimal role in this offense” and

asserting the court should have instead imposed the fifty-percent mandatory

minimum.

       “If the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, as it is here, we review

for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372, 385 (Iowa 2020).

“An abuse of discretion may exist if the sentencing court fails to consider a factor,

1Iowa Code section 902.12(4) (2022) requires a mandatory minimum sentence for
persons convicted of robbery in the second degree, giving the sentencing court
discretion to set the mandatory period “between one-half and seven-tenths of the
maximum term of the person’s sentence.” See Clayton v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 907
N.W.2d 824, 826 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017).
                                          3

gives significant weight to an improper factor, or arrives at a conclusion that is

against the facts.” Id. at 387.

       The court provided its reasons for ordering Crawford to serve a seventy-

percent mandatory minimum rather than fifty percent of the sentence term:

              What I am considering is just as what is stated in [Iowa Code
       section 901.11(4)], the defendant’s criminal record, which includes a
       prior felony conviction for robbing a bank, and the validated risk
       assessment in which the defendant scored in the high category for
       future violence and moderate to high category for future victimization
       according to the presentence investigation.
              I’m also considering the negative impact the defendant had
       on [the] victim or other persons. . . .
              Now, I totally understand that this defendant is not charged
       with holding the gun and robbing the bank. He is charged and
       convicted with aiding and abetting in that robbery in the second
       degree and his involvement in the robbery has been outlined by the
       State, I believe, accurately.
              But, again, pursuant to the statute, the court is required to
       consider the negative impact this offense of aiding and abetting
       robbery second degree had on the victim and other persons; and I
       believe it’s appropriate for me to consider the victim or other persons’
       testimony in this case.

       The court did consider Crawford’s role in the robbery when weighing the

circumstances for sentencing. Given the circumstances of this case, we find no

abuse of discretion and affirm Crawford’s sentence.

       AFFIRMED.