Court Opinion

ID: 9389934
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:35.454333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.631828
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 21-1782
                              Filed April 26, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAVID MICHAEL STEPHEN BLOOMER,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mark Kruse,

Judge.

      Defendant appeals his sentence on a conviction of second-degree burglary.

AFFIRMED.

      Shawn Smith of The Smith Law Firm, PC, Ames, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                          2

CARR, Senior Judge.

       David Bloomer appeals the indeterminate prison sentence not to exceed

ten years imposed after his plea of guilty to burglary in the second degree. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of prison time

instead of probation. We affirm Bloomer’s sentence.

       I.     Background Facts and Proceedings

       Bloomer used force to enter an apartment and struck an occupant

numerous times. He was subsequently arrested and charged with burglary in the

first degree. He entered a plea of not guilty. In addition to his already lengthy

criminal record, during pre-trial release, Bloomer committed additional offenses.

Bloomer eventually entered a guilty plea to burglary in the second degree. The

plea noted that the parties would be free to argue for any legal sentence. A

presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended that Bloomer be sentenced

to incarceration.

       At the sentencing hearing, the State recommended incarceration due to the

nature of the crime, Bloomer’s additional offenses committed while on pre-trial

release, and his substantial criminal history.       Bloomer, on the other hand,

requested probation and presented numerous mitigating factors for the court to

consider including the events that led up to the offense, his lack of violent offenses

since the incident, and the overall positive changes in his life. In addition, Bloomer

spoke on his own behalf accepting responsibility for his conduct and presented

statements of support from family and friends.

       Bloomer was ultimately sentenced to a prison term not to exceed ten years.

The district court stated it had considered numerous factors in the sentencing
                                        3

decision such as the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, protection of the

community from committing further offenses, and the nature of the offense

committed, among others. Bloomer appeals.

      II.      Standard of Review

      A sentence that is within the statutory limits is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022). “[T]he decision of

the district court to impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is

cloaked with a strong presumption 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). “An abuse of discretion will not be

found unless we are able to discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or

for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id.

      III.     Analysis

      On appeal, Bloomer argues the district court abused its discretion when it

imposed a prison sentence and failed to consider probation where he could

continue to be in the community setting for his sentence and continuing treatment

needs.      He argues that while there are numerous factors to consider when

imposing a sentence, the district court placed too much emphasis on his past

criminal history and the assaultive nature of the offense and not enough on

mitigating factors showing significant change in his life since the offense was

committed, particularly his active participation in substance-abuse and mental-

health treatment. In addition, Bloomer argues the district court failed to specify

why prison would be a more effective form of rehabilitation than another treatment

option in the community setting.
                                            4

       A district court has discretion to impose a sentence that “will provide

maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection

of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others.” Iowa Code

§ 901.5 (2021). To determine the proper sentence, the court should weigh and

consider “the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age,

character and propensities and chances of his reform.” State v. Cupples, 152

N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).          Additional factors to consider include the

defendant’s    prior   convictions    and       deferred   judgements,   employment

circumstances, family circumstances, and mental-health and substance-abuse

history as well as the treatment options in the community setting that are available.

Iowa Code § 907.5(1).

       While the court must state on the record its reasons for imposing a particular

sentence, it is generally “not required to give its reasons for rejecting particular

sentencing options.”    State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713–14 (Iowa 1995).

Further, as articulated in State v. Boltz, “the failure to acknowledge a particular

sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered.” 542

N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

       Here, the district court properly considered and weighed all factors and

circumstances when it imposed a prison sentence. First, the court noted the

assaultive nature of this particular offense and how it endangered the victims’ lives,

including that of an infant who was present. The court next noted Bloomer’s

extensive criminal record from the PSI that included both violent and non-violent

offenses that have occurred since he was a juvenile, with various types of

rehabilitation services. Finally, the court made note of Bloomer’s poor conduct
                                         5

during pre-trial release, during which he was charged with additional offenses. In

balancing rehabilitative needs and the protection of the community, the court found

these factors to weigh heavily in favor of a prison sentence.

       The court also noted the mitigating factors it considered when making the

decision.    This included the statements of support, the Alcohol and Drug

Dependency Services letter, and Bloomer’s current employment situation.

Although the court stated “I see all the things that you’ve changed,” ultimately it

was not enough for the court to feel confident that at the time of sentencing

probation was in Bloomer’s or the community’s best interest. The court provided

more than adequate reasoning for its sentencing decision, weighing all factors,

including the mitigating factors presented by Bloomer.          Therefore, a prison

sentence instead of probation was well within the discretion of the district court to

impose and its justification adequate at the sentencing hearing.

       IV.    Conclusion

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of

prison time instead of probation. We affirm the decision of the district court.

       AFFIRMED.