Court Opinion

ID: 9389924
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-26 16:04:28.276133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:30.568943
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

                                   No. 22-1007
                               Filed April 26, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
     Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

RUSTY LEE THROCKMORTON,
     Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Becky Goettsch,

District Associate Judge.

      Rusty Throckmorton appeals the sentence imposed on his criminal

conviction. AFFIRMED.

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

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

      Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

      Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ.
                                           2

BADDING, Judge.

       A jury found Rusty Throckmorton guilty of eluding while exceeding the

speed limit by twenty-five miles per hour or more. At the sentencing hearing, the

State pushed for the maximum sentence, highlighting the nature of the offense and

Throckmorton’s criminal history—which included a recent conviction and

suspended sentence for the same crime.           The defense requested probation,

pointing to the recommendation for probation in a presentence investigation report

and Throckmorton’s “stable living situation, employment.”

       In his statement of allocution, Throckmorton focused on his family situation,

noting that he is the “sole provider for all of them.” The court stated:

       I did order . . . a [presentence investigation report] to just try to find
       some mitigating factors in this situation because I will tell you that the
       State is right on the nature and circumstances of the crime being a
       huge factor in sentencing here.
               That was incredibly dangerous, watching the video that I was
       able to see during the trial, especially when you’re heading off of
       Southeast 14th up that ramp and then onto a very busy road, which
       is Southeast 14th, and cars are swerving. I mean, we’re just—
       amazing nobody got hurt in this. And you’re tearing through
       residential streets in the dark. If someone had been walking—it was
       very dangerous behavior, and you’ve done that before.

After Throckmorton responded his prior conviction was not “to that extent, though,”

the court added:

              Right, but you have a prior eluding.
              ....
              I find that pretty egregious. You know, I did order a
       [presentence investigation] to look for some mitigating factors, and,
       you know, it sounds like you can hold a job and, you know, take care
       of your family for periods of time. But I have to weigh that with, you
       know, protecting the public in this situation. So I do think that
       incarceration is appropriate.
                                         3

The court imposed an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed two

years.1 In its written sentencing order, the court noted that it also considered the

circumstances of the crime; protection of the public from further offenses; and

Throckmorton’s criminal history, propensity for further criminal acts, age, and

character.

      Throckmorton appeals, claiming the sentencing court abused its discretion

“by solely considering the nature of the offense.”         In making this claim,

Throckmorton acknowledges that the court noted its consideration of other factors

but asserts its “cursory mention” of those other factors “is insufficient when the

record demonstrates that the district court relied solely on the nature and

circumstances of the offense.”

      We review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law and “will not

reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some

defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724

(Iowa 2002). “Sentencing decisions . . . are cloaked with a strong presumption in

their favor.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (ellipsis in

original) (citation omitted). And our job is not to “second guess” the sentencing

court’s decision. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725.

      Throckmorton is correct that a sentencing court may not base its decision

on any single factor. See State v. McKeever, 276 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Iowa 1979)

(“[N]o single factor, including the nature of the offense, will be solely

1 The court ordered this term to be served consecutively to the prior eluding
conviction “because this was repeated behavior, and the nature and
consequences and circumstances of the crimes I find to be a significant danger to
the community.”
                                          4

determinative.”). But he is incorrect in arguing that’s what happened here. Along

with the circumstances of the crime, the court considered the presentence

investigation report—which detailed Throckmorton’s personal, employment, and

family circumstances; criminal history; substance-abuse history; and various other

matters.   See Iowa Code §§ 901.5, 907.5(1) (2021).           The court specifically

discussed Throckmorton’s employment and family circumstances and weighed

those factors with the protection of the public. The record is clear that the court

considered multiple factors in sentencing Throckmorton.

       And we disagree with Throckmorton’s insinuation that the court only gave

lip service to factors beyond the circumstances of the crime. See, e.g., State v.

Wright, No. 21-1821, 2023 WL 152773, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 11, 2023)

(rejecting claim that the court only relied on the circumstances of the crime when

“the record show[ed] the court did not merely give lip service to the factors Wright

complains it did not genuinely consider” because “[t]he court specifically noted its

consideration of” several factors); State v. Phelps, No. 20-1403, 2021

WL 2690495, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 30, 2021) (rebuffing claims that “the court

‘failed to seriously consider any factors other than the nature of the offense’” and

the court’s “superficial[] refer[ence] to the other statutory factors, without more, is

little better than oral boilerplate and cannot serve as a basis for finding the court

gave serious consideration to the minimal essential factors” because the court

acknowledged other factors and “that terse treatment does not signal an abuse of

discretion” even when “the court did not discuss these factors at any great length”).

       While the court did give the circumstances of the crime heavier weight, “the

district court enjoys the latitude to place greater importance on one sentencing
                                         5

consideration over others.” State v. Latcham, No. 10-1262, 2011 WL 1138569,

at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2011); accord id. (“[A]lthough it is clear the court

placed greater importance on one sentencing consideration over others, it [is] also

apparent the ‘nature of the offense alone’ was not the single factor determinative

of the court’s discretionary sentence.” (internal citation omitted)). As a result, we

find the court did not abuse its discretion as alleged, and we affirm the sentence

imposed.

       AFFIRMED.