Court Opinion

ID: 9710988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:22:10.773389+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:01.595928
License: Public Domain

REYNOLDSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent because I believe trial court abused its discretion in imposing a jail sentence under the circumstances in this case.
It would be difficult to conceive a set of facts which would provide greater justification for a deferred sentence or probation.
The pre-sentence report was spotless. The record reflects defendant’s parents are close-knit, law-abiding, stable and supportive. Defendant attended Chariton public school system through twelfth grade, graduating sixth out of approximately 143 students. His grades were at the “A” and “B” level, although he participated in baseball, football, basketball and track, and had part-time employment. He was a student council member and was elected to the National Honor Society.
At time of sentencing, defendant was within one semester of graduating from *607Simpson College. His grade point average was approximately 3.0. He was a biology major, a Simpson Scholar and a member of the biology honor society. He had summer employment with the Des Moines Health Department. His supervisor reported defendant had merited his promotion to crew foreman and was a responsible and dependable employee who had an ability to meet the public and handle difficult situations. He manifested a genuine interest in performing a job service.
The Dean of Students at Simpson wrote, “Steve is one of our best students at Simpson. His academic record is above average and he is involved in several worthwhile campus projects. Steve has made an excellent impression on the faculty and administration. * * * I have no question that the lesson * * * has already become deeply engrained in his mind. I have talked to him since the arrest and he clearly admits his mistake.”
Similar helpful and positive reports were received from a Chariton businessman and the sheriff of Lucas County.
The pre-sentence investigator found there was no evidence defendant had a drug or alcohol dependency. He recommended,
“Due to defendant’s age, his good academic background, his career aspirations and possibilities, his family and community support, his excellent employment record, and his lack of prior involvement with law enforcement authorities, the writer recommends that the Court give serious consideration to granting Steve Grgurich a deferred sentence.”
There is not a scintilla of evidence in this record that sentencing defendant to jail was required to “provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant” or to protect the community from other offenses. § 789A.1(2), The Code. Nowhere in the record does trial court attempt a meaningful analysis of defendant’s situation in light of the sentencing criteria found in § 789A.1(2), including consideration of his age, prior record, employment circumstances, family circumstances and nature of the offense committed. See also State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967). Trial court sought to impress defendant with the fact he had received a “lucky break” from the jury, which in less than three hours (including the noon hour) found the drug sale made by defendant was for an accommodation and not for profit.
On the other hand, failure to accord a deferred sentence in this case will indelibly brand this youth as a convict and jail inmate — a wholly unnecessary and recurring hazard to what could otherwise be a brilliant career.
The promising future of this defendant is an inevitable casualty of our judicial repeal of § 793.18 which commands us to “render such judgment as the district court should have done * * * or reduce the punishment * * The hollowness of our present compliance with our mandate to review criminal sentences has been well described in the dissent in State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344, 348 (Iowa 1975), and will not be detailed again here.
The Peckenschneider majority attributed our court’s growing reluctance to interfere with trial court’s discretion to the indeterminate sentence act and specific powers given the parole board.. 236 N.W.2d at 348. Of course, neither of those factors is present in this case to furnish any justification for avoiding our § 793.18 responsibility.
We have all the information which was before the sentencing court. I would modify this holding under the authority of § 793.18, nullifying the conviction and sentence, and, placing defendant on probation for two years, defer judgment pursuant to the provisions of § 789A.1(1), The Code.
RAWLINGS, J., joins in this dissent.