Court Opinion

ID: 9369321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-08 16:05:19.606128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:14.138623
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                  No. 22-0244
                             Filed February 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAVID LEE MILLER,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mark E. Kruse,

Judge.

      A defendant appeals his consecutive sentences. AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau (until

withdrawal) and Ella M. Newell, Assistant Appellate Defenders, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
                                            2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

         A jury convicted David Lee Miller of two counts of delivery of

methamphetamine in an amount over five grams, one count of delivery of

methamphetamine in an amount under five grams as a habitual offender,1 and one

count of failure to affix a tax stamp.          The district court sentenced him to

indeterminate prison terms of twenty-five, twenty-five, fifteen, and five years. The

court ordered all terms to be served concurrently. Except for the fifteen-year

sentence—which the court ordered to be served consecutively. Miller contends

the court did not provide adequate reasons for imposing consecutive sentences

and abused its discretion in imposing these sentences. Finding ample rationale in

the sentencing colloquy, we affirm.

         We review Miller’s sentencing claim for an abuse of discretion. See State

v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 592 (Iowa 1983). Abuse occurs only when the court

“exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly

unreasonable.” State v. Evans, 672 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003). Sentencing

decisions enjoy a strong presumption in their favor. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d

708, 713 (Iowa 1995). A sentence should provide the “maximum opportunity for

the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community.” Iowa

Code § 901.5 (2021). To that end, the court must “state on the record its reason

for selecting the particular sentence.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). Further, the

court must explicitly state the reason for imposing consecutive terms, though it

1   Miller stipulated to having two prior felony convictions.
                                            3

may rely on the same reason as it did in arriving at the general sentence. State v.

Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).

       Miller’s appeal arises from a series of controlled drug buys.         He sold

methamphetamine to a confidential informant three times.            He increased the

amount he sold each time. As a result, the State tried Miller for three counts of

methamphetamine delivery and a drug tax stamp violation. The jury found him

guilty as charged.

       The district court sentenced Miller to a prison term not to exceed forty

years—with concurrent terms of twenty-five years, twenty-five years, and five

years running consecutively to a term of fifteen years. On appeal, Miller contends

that the court abused its discretion by not stating adequate reasons for imposing

consecutive sentences. Miller further contends that the court abused its discretion

by imposing those consecutive sentences. In his view, “[a] prison sentence of 25

years with a one-third minimum is more than adequate to address defendant’s drug

addiction as well as fulfill other objectives of rehabilitation.”

       Neither of Miller’s contentions find support in the record. First, the district

court prefaced its decision with the proper sentencing framework:

       The Court has considered all the sentencing provisions provided in
       Iowa Code Chapters 901 and 902. The following sentence is based
       upon my judgment of what will provide the maximum opportunity for
       your rehabilitation, at the same time protect the community from
       further offenses by you and others.
               I have specifically considered, sir, your age, family
       circumstances, job history, educational history, prior criminal record,
       factors set forth in the presentence investigation not pertaining to any
       risk assessment because it wouldn’t apply in this case. I considered
       all those factors, the statements made here today.
                                         4

The court then decided to impose a mixture of concurrent and consecutive

sentences, based on its consideration of those same factors:

      Acting pursuant to Section 901 and 902 of the Code of Iowa, the
      Defendant does stand convicted of the charges of Delivery of
      Methamphetamine, more than five grams, a class B felony in Counts
      I and II; he stands convicted of Delivery of Methamphetamine, less
      than five grams, as a habitual offender, in Count III; and the Drug
      Tax Stamp violation in Count IV . . . . Considering all the factors,
      Counts I, II, and IV will run concurrent with each other. Count III will
      run consecutive.

Next, the court elaborated on the considerations behind its exercise of discretion:

      [T]he Court does consider these very serious offenses.
      Methamphetamine is always considered—its sale, use, has been
      condemned multiple times by all kinds of courts. The problems it
      causes in society, the problems it causes to kids, to adults,
      everybody, is well documented by all those decisions. Your prior
      criminal record is not good. . . . I don’t consider dismissed charges
      and that other charge that was mentioned; however, you have a
      lengthy criminal history and it just continues. It doesn’t seem like
      you’ve done much with your life to this point and then you sell, sell,
      sell, and then—within a very short period of time and got caught, and
      that is not good for the community. It is a definite danger to the
      community. I believe the sentences are appropriate in this case.

Finally, at the end of the sentencing colloquy, the court reiterated its reasons for

imposing consecutive sentences:

      I also need to bring up the concurrent/consecutive [issue]. Again . . .
      everything’s concurrent with the exception of III. Again, these are
      separate, distinct instances where you can make a decision
      regarding what you want to do, and you chose to do what you chose
      to do, which is deliver . . . methamphetamine, a very dangerous drug.
              Also take into account all those other factors in . . . running
      the two big ones concurrently. I do take into account . . . that you do
      have a high school diploma. You do have some promise; however,
      your actions within a very short period of time were quite concerning
      to the Court.

      Miller complains that the district court abused its discretion by not stating

the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. But a complete review of the
                                         5

record shows that the court did, in fact, state its reasons for imposing consecutive

sentences. The sentencing court’s rationale need not be elaborate. Even a “‘terse

and succinct’ statement may be sufficient, ‘so long as the brevity of the court’s

statement does not prevent review of the exercise of the trial court’s sentencing

discretion.’” State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted).

       Here, the sentencing court’s explanation enables appellate review. The

court articulated specific reasons supporting the imposition of consecutive

sentences. In particular, the court noted the serious nature of Miller’s convictions

for repeated methamphetamine dealing—a pattern of conduct the court

characterized as harmful to the community—and Miller’s “lengthy” criminal history,

which spanned an eighteen-year period and included other methamphetamine

convictions.2 The court’s decision to impose consecutive sentences was not

clearly untenable or unreasonable. The seriousness of Miller’s offenses and his

substantial criminal history were appropriate bases for the court to determine that

consecutive sentences were necessary to maximize his chance of rehabilitation

and to protect the community. The court properly exercised its discretion. Thus,

we affirm the convictions and sentences.

       AFFIRMED.

2  Miller’s criminal history includes, among other things, convictions for carrying
weapons, second degree theft, third degree burglary, criminal trespass, escape of
a felon, assault while displaying a dangerous weapon, control of a
firearm/offensive weapon by a felon, and possession of a controlled substance.