Court Opinion

ID: 9383034
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 15:15:25.991115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:43.234574
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-1118
                              Filed March 29, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DENNIS EARL ESTABROOK, JR.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Phillip J. Tabor, District

Associate Judge.

      A defendant appeals his sentence, arguing the court relied on improper

factors at sentencing. APPEAL DISMISSED.

      Austin Jungblut of Parrish, Kruidenier, Dunn, Gentry, Brown, Bergmann &

Messamer L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.

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

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Ahlers, JJ. Tabor, J.,

takes no part.
                                          2

AHLERS, Judge.

       Pursuant to a plea agreement, Dennis Estabrook pleaded guilty in writing

to three counts of unauthorized use of a credit card.1 In his written guilty plea,

Estabrook waived his rights to be present for taking his plea, be present for

sentencing, speak in mitigation of punishment (allocute), file a motion in arrest of

judgment, and a delay between plea and sentencing.             As part of the plea

agreement, the parties agreed to jointly recommend a sentence of 240 days in jail

with all but sixty days suspended on each count, with the three sentences to be

served concurrently to each other. Without hearing, the district court accepted

Estabrook’s guilty pleas and imposed the jointly recommended sentences for all

three charges. Estabrook appeals, arguing that the district court considered an

improper factor in imposing the sentences.

       The State argues that we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of

Estabrook’s claim because Estabrook cannot establish good cause to appeal

following his guilty plea, as he received the agreed-upon sentence. See Iowa

Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (providing a defendant must establish good cause for an

appeal if the conviction results from a guilty plea to a charge other than a class “A”

felony). The burden is on Estabrook to establish good cause for an appeal. See

State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Iowa 2020). Typically, a defendant is able

to demonstrate good cause by appealing the sentence rather than the guilty plea.

See id. at 105 (“[G]ood cause exists to appeal from a conviction following a guilty

1As each count involved $1500 or less of property or services sought to be secured
by the credit card, each charge is an aggravated misdemeanor in violation of Iowa
Code section 715A.6(1)(a) and (2)(c) (2019).
                                       3

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

plea.”). However, in establishing that good cause exists to appeal the sentence

rather than the guilty plea, our supreme court has recognized exceptions when the

sentence was either mandatory or agreed to in the plea bargain.         State v.

Thompson, 951 N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2020) (citing Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 105). Our

court has enforced these exceptions, dismissing appeals due to lack of showing of

good cause when the sentence imposed is mandatory or the agreed-upon

sentence under the plea agreement. See, e.g., State v. Jenkins, No. 21-1828,

2022 WL 16630805, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2022) (dismissing appeal

challenging agreed-upon sentence as the defendant “has no remedy because she

got what she bargained for and she has not established good cause to appeal”);

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

2021) (dismissing appeal for lack of good cause due to the sentence imposed

being that agreed to by the parties); State v. Major, No. 19-2055, 2021 WL

3662311, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2021) (dismissing appeal when challenged

sentence is mandatory).

      As there is no question that Estabrook received the sentences to which he

agreed, he has not established good cause to appeal and his appeal must be

dismissed.

      APPEAL DISMISSED.