Court Opinion

ID: 9397082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-24 15:05:37.834656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:21.224885
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0985
                              Filed May 24, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TYLER JOHN POHLMAN,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley,

District Associate Judge.

      Tyler Pohlman appeals the sentences imposed upon his criminal

convictions. AFFIRMED.

      Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                        2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

      After his criminal trial commenced, Tyler Pohlman decided to plead guilty to

domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, domestic abuse assault by impeding

breathing or circulation of blood, and assault causing bodily injury. The terms of

the plea agreement included largely suspended prison sentences with credit for

time already served and two years of probation, with “[m]inimum fines to be

suspended, where applicable.” The parties’ joint sentencing recommendation

likewise included suspending the minimum fines “where applicable.”              In

announcing its sentencing decision, however, the court noted it could not suspend

the fines on counts one and three—domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury

and assault causing bodily injury—both serious misdemeanors.1 See Iowa Code

§§ 708.2(2), .2A(2)(b). So the court did not do so, and Pohlman appealed following

the imposition of sentence.

      On appeal, Pohlman argues the “sentence was overly harsh.” Specifically,

he complains the court imposed fines on counts one and three “despite the plea

agreement suspending the fines.”2 He “asks that his sentence be overturned with

the fines removed.”   The State responds that the court had no discretion to

suspend the fines in any event. We side with the State for the following reasons.

1 However, the court provided Pohlman the option to perform community service
work of an equivalent value to the fines. See Iowa Code § 909.3A (2021). And
the court did suspend the fine on count two, an aggravated misdemeanor. See id.
§ 708.2A(2)(d); see also id. § 903.1(2); State v. Ayers, 590 N.W.2d 25, 29–31
(Iowa 1999) (concluding section 903.1(2) provides sentencing court discretion to
suspend fines on aggravated misdemeanors).
2 We note from the outset that the plea agreement did not specifically call for

suspension of the fines. Rather, it called for suspension of the fines “where
applicable” or, in other words, when authorized by law.
                                          3

       We recently revisited the question concerning the district court’s discretion

to suspend fines on serious misdemeanors.                  See State v. Phillips,

No. 22-0659, 2023 WL 2672058, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023). Following

Ayers, we reiterated that under section 903.1(1)(b), fines—at least from a

standpoint of the general sentencing statute—cannot be suspended on serious

misdemeanors. See id.; see also Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(b) (providing maximum

and minimum penalties for simple and serious misdemeanors, “which fine shall not

be suspended by the court”); Ayers, 590 N.W.2d at 31 (categorizing “serious and

simple misdemeanor offenses as the class of offenses in which the sentencing

court cannot suspend a fine”). Our decision in Phillips specifically considered the

sentence imposed on a conviction for assault causing bodily injury and squarely

applies to Pohlman’s conviction of that offense here.

       Turning to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, Pohlman submits

the court is afforded discretion to suspend the fine by section 708.2A(7)(a), which

provides, in part, “a fine may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence” for

violations of section 708.2A(2). In its entirety, the provision provides as follows:

              A person convicted of violating subsection 2 or 3 shall serve
       a minimum term of two days of the sentence imposed by law, and
       shall not be eligible for suspension of the minimum sentence. The
       minimum term shall be served on consecutive days. The court shall
       not impose a fine in lieu of the minimum sentence, although a fine
       may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence. This section
       does not prohibit the court from sentencing and the person from
       serving the maximum term of confinement or from paying the
       maximum fine permitted pursuant to chapters 902 and 903, and does
       not prohibit the court from entering a deferred judgment or sentence
       pursuant to section 907.3, if the person has not previously received
       a deferred sentence or judgment for a violation of section 708.2 or
       this section which was issued on a domestic abuse assault.
                                         4

       We first observe that this provision applies to simple, serious, and

aggravated misdemeanor variations of domestic abuse assault. Going from there,

section 708.2A(7)(a) mandates that a person serve a minimum of two days of the

sentence, which cannot be suspended and the court cannot simply impose a fine

in lieu of. Cf. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2023 WL 3028128,

at *3–4 (Iowa 2023) (concluding fine-only sentence is not authorized by section

909.1 for third-offense possession of methamphetamine because section

124.401(5)(f) mandates imprisonment and placement on probation).

       However, as Pohlman points out, “a fine may be imposed in addition to the

minimum sentence.” Iowa Code § 708.2A(7)(a). Because section 708.2A does

not provide fines specific to simple, serious, and aggravated domestic abuse

assault, we must then turn to the general sentencing statute for misdemeanors,

section 903.1. When we get there, as noted, section 903.1(2) provides the court

discretion to suspend a fine on aggravated misdemeanors, while section 903.1(1)

does not provide such discretion for simple and serious misdemeanors. So the

court may suspend any fine imposed in addition to the minimum sentence on an

aggravated misdemeanor variation of domestic abuse assault, but it may not

suspend any fine imposed in addition to the minimum sentence on the simple and

serious misdemeanor variations.

       Because the district court was correct in concluding it could not suspend the

fines on these serious misdemeanors, we find no legal error or abuse of discretion

and affirm the sentences. See State v. Patten, 981 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 2022)

(setting forth standard of review).

       AFFIRMED.