Court Opinion

ID: 9389928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:31.364737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.559153
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-0241
                               Filed April 26, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MIGUEL ANTONIO RUIZ, JR.,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.

      Miguel Ruiz appeals the sentences imposed upon his criminal convictions.

AFFIRMED.

      Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Mullins, S.J.*

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

(2023).
                                          2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

       Miguel Ruiz appeals the sentences imposed upon his convictions, following

guilty pleas,1 for obstructing prosecution and accessory after the fact. He argues

the sentencing court “abused its discretion by considering aggravating factors that

were not borne out by the record at [his] sentencing.”

       Ruiz was charged by trial information with obstruction of prosecution,

accessory after the fact, and two counts of conspiracy. In time, Ruiz filed a written

guilty plea, which noted the terms of the plea agreement included concurrent

sentences on counts one and two and dismissal of the conspiracy charges. Ruiz

agreed to the accuracy of the minutes of evidence to establish factual bases for

his plea to counts one and two, and he admitted he did “obstruct prosecution by

aiding + abetting the destruction of potential evidence + assisted an individual

charged w/ a felony by transporting out of area.” The court accepted Ruiz’s pleas

and set the matter for sentencing.

       At the sentencing hearing, the State recommended concurrent prison

sentences, highlighting its position that Ruiz “hasn’t accepted appropriate

accountability for his actions.” Specifically, the State explained Ruiz “never came

forward to offer assistance or truth to tell what happened in this case,” which

resulted in the victim’s family having “to wait so long in order to find out the truth

about what happened” to the victim “and how he died.”                  The defense

recommended imposition of suspended sentences, highlighting Ruiz’s limited

1 The State agrees Ruiz has good cause to appeal following his guilty pleas. See
Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 89, 104
(Iowa 2021).
                                             3

criminal history, employment, and “truthful retelling of what occurred” to

investigators.2

         Following the reading of a victim impact statement, the court sentenced

Ruiz to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed two years. The court

explained:

                 In determining this sentence, I’ve considered the entirety of
         the information before me in this case, which includes the nature and
         circumstances of these offenses and the history and characteristics
         of the Defendant as I know them, which include just one prior criminal
         conviction out of the state of Illinois. It was a firearm-related offense,
         and this is a firearm-related incident we’re talking about here.
                 And I agree with the State’s characterization that Mr. Ruiz
         could have done a lot, a lot earlier, to ameliorate some suffering of
         the families and even another one of the defendants in this action.
                 This case is different than [another codefendant’s] because
         [the codefendant] came forward earlier, pled earlier, and she got the
         additional benefit for doing that. The same does not apply, in my
         mind, to Mr. Ruiz.
                 I did consider the recommendation of both counsel in this
         case. I’ve considered Mr. Ruiz’s right to not say anything in this case.
         I did not hold it against him in any way. And I also considered the
         victim impact statement we heard here today.
                 But I do find that this sentence offers the Defendant the
         maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, balanced against the interest
         in protecting the community; and it does justice, given the facts and
         circumstances of the charges in this case.

(Emphasis added.)

         Focusing on the emphasized language in the court’s statement above, Ruiz

argues on appeal that court’s belief that he “was not cooperative and forthcoming

with law enforcement regarding his involvement” is not supported by the record

and was therefore an improper sentencing factor.

2   Ruiz declined his opportunity for allocution.
                                           4

         We review sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion, which occurs

when the district court relies on an impermissible sentencing factor. State v. West

Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355 (Iowa 2022). A consideration is out of bounds for

sentencing purposes “unless the defendant admits them or facts are presented to

prove them.” State v. Fetner, 959 N.W.2d 129, 135 (Iowa 2021).

         The minutes of evidence disclose the following pertinent facts. An argument

at a house party in Cedar Rapids in the early morning hours of June 18, 2020

resulted in the shooting death of Malik Sheets. Sheets was allegedly shot by either

M.J. or C.E.,3 one of the two people Ruiz was at the party with. The trio fled from

the party after the shooting. Later that morning, they arrived at Sharvell Davis’s

apartment in North Liberty, disposed of their clothes in a garbage bag, and gave

Davis directions on what to do with the bag. The trio then fled to Illinois.

         The next day—June 19—Ruiz, M.J., and C.E. were taken into custody by

police in Illinois. When interviewed by Cedar Rapids law enforcement that same

day, all three denied being involved in the shooting. Ruiz reported he “didn’t really

know what happened” at the party; left the party with M.J., C.E., and another

person after things “erupted”; went to an apartment in North Liberty, then went to

Chicago. M.J. reported to police that changing his clothes was Ruiz’s idea. C.E.

reported they went to North Liberty to change clothes “then went to Illinois to avoid

getting into trouble.”

         Law enforcement continued investigating the matter through September.

While outside the minutes of evidence, the record shows a criminal complaint was

3   These individuals were apparently juveniles at the time.
                                         5

filed and a warrant issued for Ruiz’s arrest on September 18. He was arrested on

November 22. As noted, Ruiz admitted in his guilty plea that he assisted in

destroying evidence to obstruct prosecution and transported another out of the

area as an accessory after the fact.

       The record shows Ruiz was involved in the shooting and—with the likely

intent to prevent apprehension—destroyed evidence, aided the known

perpetrators involved in fleeing the state, and lied to law enforcement about it all.

The truth was only uncovered by further investigation by law enforcement. All of

these facts are ingredients to the factual bases supporting Ruiz’s pleas, and they

are drawn from permissible sources to establish a factual basis. See State v.

Finney, 834 N.W.2d 46, 62 (Iowa 2013) (noting “the entire record before the district

court may be examined” in determining a factual basis). So Ruiz’s claim that the

court’s belief that he “was not cooperative and forthcoming with law enforcement

regarding his involvement” was an improper factor as unsupported by the record

rings hollow. The facts before the court specifically show he was not cooperative

and forthcoming with law enforcement about his involvement. To the extent the

court considered this as a factor in its sentencing decision, it was fair game.

       Finding the court did not abuse its discretion by relying on an improper

sentencing factor, we affirm.

       AFFIRMED.