State of Iowa v. Nigel Wayne Graves ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0150
Filed November 12, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NIGEL WAYNE GRAVES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J.
Holwerda, District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals the prison sentence imposed following his guilty plea
to forgery. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin Cmelik and Sheryl A.
Soich, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Nigel Graves appeals the indeterminate five-year prison term imposed
following his guilty plea to forgery. He claims the district court should have
suspended his sentence and placed him on probation to obtain mental health
services. Because we find the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Graves to incarceration, we affirm.
The forgery charge resulted from Graves’s attempt to cash a $400 check
that belonged to another person, without permission, at Bank Iowa in Newton on
September 9, 2014. The State filed a trial information on September 24, 2014,
alleging Graves violated Iowa Code section 715A.2(1), .2(1)(c), and .2(2)(a)
(2013). Graves entered a guilty plea on November 5, 2014, admitting he
endorsed the forged check. The State informed the court at the plea hearing that
it would make a sentencing recommendation consistent with the presentence
investigation (PSI) report, if one was ordered. The court ordered a PSI and
directed Graves to cooperate with the preparer.
The PSI report detailed Graves’s long history of both serious mental
illness and criminality. The report noted Graves had been sentenced to prison
three times—with his last release in September 2011. The report also noted
Graves had “previously been granted probation on four occasions and has been
unsuccessful in every attempt.” The report recommended incarceration. More
specifically, the report urged “the defendant be placed into the custody of the
Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections [DOC] in the facility best suited
for offenders with severe mental health issues.”
3
At the sentencing hearing on January 14, 2015, the State pointed to
Graves’s “quite lengthy criminal history” and asked the district court to follow the
PSI report’s sentencing recommendation of incarceration.
On the defense side, counsel agreed his client, who was thirty-four years
old, was “a familiar person to the court.” Counsel asserted Graves’s mental
health problems were “typically the generators that bring him before the court.”
Counsel highlighted the passage in the PSI asking for the DOC to place Graves
in the best facility for an offender needing mental health treatment but expressed
doubt about the availability of such programming. Counsel relayed his client’s
wish to be placed in a mental health institute but acknowledged the court did not
have the “power to direct somebody to a specific mental health institute.”
Counsel continued: “There is a need for mental health services among all the
members of the prison population, and Mr. Graves is a good example of that.”
Counsel told the court there was “a certain logic to just placing him on probation
with those kind of services, because it would be cheaper for society.” Then
Graves personally addressed the court, saying he believed a mental health
institute would benefit him more than prison.
The court imposed a sentence of incarceration not to exceed five years,
explaining its decision as follows:
The Court is certainly aware of—of the statistics of the number of
people that are in prison that allegedly have mental health issues,
as well as the fact that for people with mental health issues, there
may be a more effective treatment someplace else. The purpose of
prison is more for punishment and hopefully rehabilitation for the
criminal act of it rather than for the rehabilitation on the mental
health side of it, and that’s certainly unfortunate for someone who
shows both mental health issues as well as criminal behavior. But
4
as [defense counsel] said, this Court at this time doesn’t have the
authority to just place you at a mental health institute.
The court addressed the downside to leaving the burden of obtaining
mental health treatment on Graves’s shoulders:
The unfortunate thing, Mr. Graves, is that when you are not
incarcerated, the responsibility for seeking mental health
counseling or following through with mental health counseling falls
on you. And when you’re out, if you can’t take the steps to address
that, then it’s a little difficult for the Court to fashion a punishment
that may benefit you now, but you only want it now when you’re
facing the prospect of prison.
The court then focused on Graves’s history of failed probation:
Given the fact that, at least according to the Presentence
Investigation Report, you’ve been on probation four times and been
successful—unsuccessful four times, the Court does not believe
that probation is appropriate at this time either. The Court is
certainly hopeful that you’ll get at least sufficient mental health
services while you’re in prison, and if you’re either released on
parole or discharged, that once you’re out, you’ll be able to find the
services that will assist you with your mental health needs.
Graves now appeals, challenging only the sentence imposed.
We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83, 85–86 (Iowa 2005). An appellate court will find such
abuse 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).
Graves argues the court abused its discretion by not granting probation.
Graves contends the court should have suspended his sentence on the condition
he “seek and obtain” voluntary or involuntary hospitalization for persons with
mental illness under Iowa Code sections 229.2 or 229.6. Graves cites no
5
authority for a sentencing court to order civil commitment as a condition of
granting probation. See generally State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440, 446 (Iowa
2006) (“A condition is reasonable when it relates to the defendant’s
circumstances in a reasonable manner.”).
We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s process of determining
the appropriate sentence to address Graves’s rehabilitation, as well as the
protection of the community. See Iowa Code § 901.5; see also State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724-25 (Iowa 2002). A sentencing court must weigh the nature
of the offense and attending circumstances, the defendant’s age, character and
propensity and chances of reform. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. And before
suspending sentence, the court must consider the defendant’s prior record of
convictions, employment status, family circumstances, and any other relevant
factors from Iowa Code section 907.5. Id.
The district court acknowledged Graves’s significant mental health issues.
But the court also considered his long criminal history, stretching back decades.
The court took special note of Graves’s previous unsuccessful probationary
sentences. The court was “hopeful” that Graves could obtain “sufficient mental
health services” while in prison. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to
place greater weight on Graves’s poor chance of reform while on probation. See
State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (holding “right of an individual
judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence
inheres in the discretionary standard”).
AFFIRMED.