Court Opinion

ID: 9895749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:06:31.552045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:08.922822
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                     No. 22-2105
                               Filed November 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOHN FRANK THOMASSON,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal    from     the   Iowa   District   Court   for   Des   Moines   County,

Clinton R. Boddicker, District Associate Judge.

      A defendant appeals his sentences following his guilty pleas. AFFIRMED.

      Erin M. Carr of Carr Law Firm, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                         2

AHLERS, Judge.

       John Thomasson resolved two criminal cases by pleading guilty to

possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and absence from custody.

An ensuing presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended Thomasson “be

granted a suspended sentence with probation.” At sentencing, the district court

declined to follow the PSI recommendation.          Instead, the court sentenced

Thomasson to a ten-year prison term for the possession-with-intent-to-deliver

charge and a 365-day term of incarceration for the absence from custody charge,

with the two sentences to be served concurrently.

       Thomasson appeals. He argues the district court abused its discretion by

declining to follow the PSI sentencing recommendation for suspended sentences.1

He reasons the district court should have found mitigating sentencing factors

outweighed the aggravating. Specifically, he contends the mitigating factors that

he “was not convicted of any violent crimes” and was “actively trying to obtain

treatment for drug addiction” should have resulted in the suspended sentences

recommended in the PSI.

       We review sentencing challenges for correction of errors at law. State v.

Fetner, 959 N.W.2d 129, 133 (Iowa 2021). Sentencing courts are afforded a great

deal of latitude in exercising discretion in sentencing. Id. When, as here, the

sentence imposed is within statutory limits, it “is cloaked with a strong presumption

1 Thomasson has good cause to appeal to challenge his sentence. See Iowa Code

§ 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022) (requiring a defendant who pleads guilty to any offense
other than a class “A” felony to establish good cause to appeal); State v. Damme,
944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (holding a defendant has good cause to appeal
following a guilty plea when the defendant is challenging the sentence imposed).
                                          3

in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the

consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724

(Iowa 2002). A sentencing court abuses its discretion only when the discretion is

exercised for reasons that are clearly untenable or to an extent clearly

unreasonable. State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022).

       District courts are not required to follow PSI recommendations—rather it is

just one of the many factors the court considers when determining a sentence.

State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2019). So the district court did not

abuse its discretion by reaching a different sentencing determination than that

recommended by the PSI. We understand Thomasson believes the court should

have weighed the relevant sentencing factors differently, but it is not for this court

to second guess the district court’s weighing of permissible sentencing factors.

See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725 (“[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the

decision made by the district court . . . .”). And, as Thomasson does not point to

any impermissible sentencing factor considered by the district court, we conclude

the district court did not abuse its discretion when imposing Thomasson’s

sentences.

       AFFIRMED.