 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Terrones9/11/2002
Defendant appeals from the sentence entered by the district court following his guilty plea to third offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2001). AFFIRMED.
Gregory Joe Terrones, Jr. appeals from the sentence entered by the district court following his guilty plea to third offense operating while intoxicated (OWI) in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2001). He contends the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a term of no more than five years imprisonment because the court failed to give adequate consideration to his character and chances for reform. We affirm.
Our review of sentencing decisions is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. We review for an abuse of discretion or for defects in the sentencing procedure. State v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755, 756 (Iowa 1995). A sentence will not be upset on appeal unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000).
Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in the their favor. Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996) (citations omitted).
When a sentence is not mandatory, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining what sentence to impose. The district court must demonstrate its exercise of discretion by stating upon the record the reasons for the particular sentence imposed. The sentencing court, however, is generally not required to give its reasons for rejecting particular sentencing options. Id. (citations omitted).
In applying discretion, the court "should weigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant's age, character and propensities and chances of his reform. The courts owe a duty to the public as much as to defendant in determining a proper sentence. The punishment should fit both the crime and the individual." State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979)).
These are some of the "minimal essential factors" to be considered when exercising sentencing discretion. State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979).
In considering sentencing options the court is to determine, in its discretion, which of the authorized sentences will provide both the maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others. Iowa Code § 901.5. "The nature of the offense alone cannot be determinative of a discretionary sentence." State v. Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 1982).
Terrones argues the court failed to give adequate consideration to his character and chances for reform. Specifically, he contends the court did not adequately consider the fact he had admitted to being an alcoholic, was sober, was attending substance abuse meetings/classes, was not driving, and had a full-time job. However, we find the record clearly demonstrates that the sentencing court did in fact take these matters, as well as other pertinent factors, into consideration in determining Terrones's sentence.
Initially the court noted Terrones's age, educatio
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|