Court Opinion

ID: 9393503
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-10 15:04:58.003175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:53.631646
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0794
                              Filed May 10, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

AARON DION MICHAEL HANSON GALES, JR.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II,

Judge.

      The defendant challenges his sentence, arguing the district court abused

its discretion in imposing consecutive terms of incarceration. AFFIRMED.

      Jessica A. Millage of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, for

appellant.

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

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
                                          2

GREER, Judge.

         In FECR416645, Aaron Hanson Gales Jr. pled guilty to escaping from

custody after being convicted of a felony, which is a class “D” felony. See Iowa

Code § 719.4(1) (2021).         Later, at a combined sentencing hearing for

FECR416645 and three other cases, Hanson Gales was sentenced to a term of

incarceration not to exceed five years for escaping from custody.       The court

ordered him to serve the sentence concurrently with the sentence the court

imposed in FECR4081491 and consecutively to the sentences the court imposed

in FECR4191582 and FECR420322.3 Hanson Gales argues the district court

abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison and running the sentence

consecutive to other terms of incarceration. He points to his “young age,” claiming

it should have been a strong mitigating factor, and maintains the court’s brief

explanation for the sentence is insufficient.

         As the State recognizes, Hanson Gales has good cause for this appeal.

See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). We review his sentence

for correction of errors at law. See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa

2002).     A sentence that conforms to the statute “is cloaked with a strong

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

1 The district court revoked Hanson Gales’s deferred judgment for second-degree
theft and imposed the original five-year sentence in FECR408149.
2 A jury convicted Hanson Gales of dominion and control of a firearm by a felon

and possessing a short-barrel rifle or shotgun in FECR419158; the court
sentenced him to five years of incarceration for each charge but ordered them to
be served concurrently (for a total of five years).
3 In FECR420322, Hanson Gales pled guilty to two counts of assault on persons

in certain occupations causing bodily injury; the court sentenced him to two years
of incarceration on each count and ordered him to serve them consecutively (for a
total of four years).
                                         3

the consideration of inappropriate matters.” Id. An abuse of discretion is only

found if we can “discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons

that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id.

      The combined sentencing hearing took place in two parts. First, Hanson

Gales stipulated to his probation violation in FECR408149, and the State

recommended revoking Hanson Gales’s deferred judgment and probation and

imposing the original five-year sentence for second-degree theft. The district court

agreed with the State’s recommendation and addressed Hanson Gales as follows:

             Sir, it’s unfortunate that you were not able to meet the terms
      of probation as I set forth originally in this case. I was hoping that it
      would give you an opportunity to remain in the community, but,
      unfortunately, I do not believe that’s an option at this time and that a
      period of incarceration is appropriate based on your plea of guilty.

Then Hanson Gales’s first attorney was excused, and his second attorney—the

attorney for his remaining three cases—took over.

      In making its recommendation as to the final three cases, the State urged

the court to impose a mix of concurrent and consecutive terms for a total not to

exceed twelve years. The State explained its reasoning as follows:

             I feel that’s appropriate given primarily Mr. Hanson Gales’s
      young age, I believe he’s about 19 years old,[4] and his criminal
      history, which is not as long as some that we see come through here,
      but is not insignificant. But what gives the State a lot of cause for
      concern and is primarily the reason for recommending that any of
      these counts run consecutive to each other is that these cases
      represent that Mr. Hanson Gales is a danger to the community and
      that there is nothing really less restrictive that can accomplish the
      goals of sentencing, being the rehabilitation of the Defendant and the
      protection of the community.
             And I think that the rehabilitation of the Defendant is likely
      going to take a little while. He was in the [residential corrections

4Based on the birth date listed in the presentence investigation report, Hanson
Gales was twenty-one at the time of sentencing.
                                           4

      facility] and struggled there before leaving without permission. And
      then while he was out on escape status while still on probation, he
      committed new crimes. And then was brought into the jail, and then
      while he was in the jail, committed crimes against jail staff there,
      being the assaults on peace officers. So the State feels that there
      is, frankly, nothing that can really prevent Mr. Hanson Gales from
      continuing to commit new crimes as that is what his behavior over
      the last year has indicated. And even in incarceration, frankly, can’t
      really prevent him from committing new crimes, but can at least limit
      who he is committing these crimes against, being people who are at
      least [ostensibly] signing up for that by working in a jail or Department
      of Corrections facility. It’s not ideal, but I think it’s the only thing that
      can really protect the rest of the community from his criminal
      behavior.
               The only other reason I think any kind of concurrent sentence
      is appropriate for him is given his young age. He’s not very old.
      There is some hope that he can rehabilitate himself and change. But
      I do think that a long sentence is necessary to show him that that
      type of behavior will not be tolerated and will not be condoned and
      just, frankly, to protect the community from him doing similar
      activities to other people.
               So I think concurrent sentences would be inappropriate and
      not enough to defer further criminal behavior, but, likewise, I think if
      everything were run boxcarred for 24 years, that would be excessive
      given his age. So the State’s landed on a recommendation of 12
      years with his revocation and the new cases combined.

Through his attorney, Hanson Gales argued for a term of incarceration not to

exceed seven years. He focused on his “young age” and noted that, while he had

spent 173 days in county jail, he had never been to prison. Recognizing Hanson

Gales was already sentenced to a prison term in the probation-revocation case,

his attorney argued:

             He understands that he’s going to go to prison, and he has
      indicated that he is going to take advantage of all of the resources
      that are available to him. And let’s hope he does that. But let’s give
      him an opportunity to be able to see the light at the [end] of the tunnel,
      so to speak, to know what he has got to do.
             So I’m asking for those to be run concurrent to one another,
      judge. And here is where the heavy lifting starts. I’m going to ask
      that the Short-Barrel Shotgun, that’s FECR419158, and the
      Dominion and Control, that those run concurrent to one another,
                                          5

      and—here’s the heavy lifting—that they are concurrent to the Escape
      and to the probation violation.
              Now, why I ask that is that would give him five years on the
      three [“D” felonies] that he has. I’m not going to be asking for a
      concurrent sentence on the Assault on Persons in Certain
      Occupations. That’s a bridge too far. So I’m asking that those two
      two-year sentences run concurrent to one another, but consecutive
      to the three [other cases] that are run concurrent. That would be a
      total of seven years. It’s less than [the prosecutor] wants for those
      12 years, but that is still going to give Aaron a significant time in jail
      for him to figure out—or not jail, in prison to figure out that if I don’t
      modify my behavior, I will be back here and back here and back here.
              ....
              He has never really had the consequences—because these
      things came up so quick, he never really had the consequences.
      Well, now the consequences are here, judge. I am just asking you
      to give him something that [he can] look forward to knowing that if he
      has seven years as opposed to 12 years, that if he engages in all of
      the activities that the prison has to offer, all the programs, all of the
      things that Aaron told me that he wants to do to better himself, he
      can be out in a couple of years, he will be on parole, and then we’ll
      see how he does.

After Hanson Gales personally told the court what he would like it to consider, the

court imposed sentence, stating:

      Mr. Hanson Gales, it’s my duty under the law to review what’s
      available to me in terms of community resources and to determine
      what the appropriate rehabilitative plan would be for you. I also have
      to consider the serious nature of all of the offenses that you have
      plead[ed] guilty to or have been found guilty of, and the effect that it
      has had upon the community, and the safety of the community, to be
      quite honest, and your willingness to accept change and treatment
      to address your needs. I look at the least restrictive alternatives first
      and then proceed to the more restrictive alternatives.
              I have reviewed your entire Presentence Investigation Report
      for the purposes of today’s sentencing, but I have not considered any
      of the entries in the criminal history section that do not reflect an
      admission of guilt or a finding of guilt in regards to those offenses.
              It is true, Mr. Hanson Gales, you’re very young. But to be
      honest with you, sir, I’m very concerned with the serious nature of
      these offenses. Most particularly, the fact that you had dominion and
      control of a firearm, and the type of firearm that you had, and the
      assault on correctional officers. That’s very concerning to me.
      Correctional officers are there to help. Probation officers are there
      to help. And I respect what they do in trying to help Defendants. And
                                          6

       I’m very concerned about the fact that you had control of a very
       serious firearm. I’m also concerned about the expectations of
       rehabilitation in regards to yourself.
               ....
               The sentences that I have imposed will be served as follows:
       FECR41664[5] will be served concurrently with FECR408149. The
       sentences imposed in FECR419158 under Counts 1 and 2 shall be
       served concurrently, but that sentence shall be served consecutive
       to the sentences imposed in FECR4018149 and FECR416645. The
       sentences imposed in FECR420322, Counts 7 and 8, shall be served
       consecutively and also consecutive to the sentences imposed in
       FECR408149, FECR416645 and FECR419158.
               The reason for the consecutive sentencing is due to the
       serious nature of the offenses in both FECR420322 and
       FECR419158 and the Defendant’s criminal history.

       As the district court’s stated reasoning shows, the court properly considered

Hanson Gales’s age as a factor in reaching its sentencing decision. See Formaro,

638 N.W.2d at 424–25 (“It is . . . important to consider the host of factors that weigh

in on the often arduous task of a sentencing a criminal offender, including the

nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the age, character and

propensity of the offender, and the chances of reform.”). While Hanson Gales

believes the district court should have relied on his young age of twenty-one years

old and shown more leniency, this argument does not point to an abuse of

discretion by the court. See Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 106 (recognizing sentencing

courts are “afforded . . . a significant amount of latitude because of the

‘discretionary nature of judging’” (citation omitted)); State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d

590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (“Each judge must grapple with the facts and circumstances

in the case before him and arrive at the sentence he regards as right. The right of

an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate

sentence inheres in the discretionary standard.” (internal citation omitted)).

Hanson Gales’s “mere disagreement with the sentence imposed, without more, is
                                          7

insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion.” State v. Pena, No. 15-0988, 2016

WL 1133807, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016).

      And while the district court’s explanation of why it was ordering Hanson

Gales to serve the five-year sentence in this case consecutive to his sentences in

other cases was “terse and succinct,” we are able to review the district court’s

exercise of discretion in imposing the sentences at this omnibus hearing. State v.

Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted); see State v. Victor,

310 N.W.2d 201, 205 (Iowa 1981) (concluding the sentencing court met the

requirement to provide reasons for the sentence imposed when “[t]he brevity of the

court’s statement of reasons” did not prevent “review of the sentencing discretion”

because it was “clear from the trial court’s statement exactly what motivated and

prompted the sentence”); see also State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016)

(requiring courts to “explicitly state the reasons for imposing a consecutive

sentence, although in doing so the court may rely on the same reasons for

imposing a sentence of incarceration”).

      Because Hanson Gales has not shown the court abused its discretion in

reaching its sentencing decision and the court’s explanation of its decision, while

concise, is sufficient for our review, we affirm Hanson Gales’s sentence.

      AFFIRMED.