Court Opinion

ID: 9585384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:59:48.647236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:48.641134
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority in affirming defendant’s conviction. However, unlike my fellow judges, I would remand for re-sentencing.
I recognize our review of a sentence is limited and the decisions of the trial court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. See State v. Pappas, 337 N.W.2d 490, 494 (Iowa 1983); State v. Stanley, 344 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Iowa App.1983); State v. Messer, 306 N.W.2d 731, 732 (Iowa 1981).
To overcome the presumption of regularity of a sentence defendant must show abuse and prejudice. He must show trial court’s discretion must have been exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Pappas at 494.
Defendant contends incarceration for the purpose of placing the defendant in fear and exposing him to danger is not a tenable reason for imposition of a penitentiary sentence and demonstrates an abuse of discretion. I determine the trial court’s remarks give rise to the conclusion he is sending the defendant to prison to meet the tough guys and be a victim or potential victim. Furthermore, the trial court’s statement that the whole purpose of probation is to help someone who acknowledges that they broke the law ... and he chastised defend*195ant for denying any wrongdoing. Admission of guilt is not a requisite for probation.
HAYDEN, J., loins this partial dissent.