State of Iowa v. Jahmal Anthony Cavil ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0405
Filed February 6, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAHMAL ANTHONY CAVIL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey D. Farrell,
Judge.
Defendant challenges his sentences for possession of a controlled
substance (methamphetamine), third offense, and assault while displaying a
dangerous weapon. AFFIRMED.
Jamie F. Deremiah of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
McDONALD, Judge.
Jahmal Cavil pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine), third offense, and assault while displaying a dangerous
weapon. Under the terms of the parties’ plea agreement, the sentences were to
be consecutive but the defendant was free to argue for a probationary sentence
and the prosecutor was free to argue for incarceration. The matter came on for a
sentencing hearing. The district court reviewed the presentence investigation
report, heard the arguments of counsel, and received the defendant’s allocution.
The district court sentenced Cavil to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to
exceed seven years and explained the reasons for the same. On appeal, Cavil
contends the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence.
We review a sentence within the statutory limits for an abuse of discretion.
See State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). We will find an abuse of
discretion only when the grounds for a decision were clearly unreasonable or
clearly untenable. See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
In imposing sentence, the district court should consider all information
pertinent to the sentencing decision, including, but not limited to, “the nature of the
offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities
and chances of his [or her] reform.” State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa
1999) (quoting State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979)). In this
case, the record reflects the district court considered pertinent information and did
not consider any improper information in imposing sentence on the defendant.
Cavil does not dispute the district court considered relevant information and
did not consider irrelevant information. Instead, Cavil seems to contend the district
3
court abused its discretion merely because it imposed a different sentence than
the one for which Cavil argued. We disagree. The district court is allowed to
operate “according to the dictates of [its] own conscience.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
at 725. “While the defendant may wish the district court would have reached a
different result in considering the relevant sentencing factors, mere disagreement
with the court’s sentencing decision is not a ground for relief.” State v. Worby, No.
17-1832, 2018 WL 4360995, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 12, 2018).
Cavil has failed to establish the district court abused its discretion in
imposing sentence. We affirm the defendant’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.