State of Iowa v. Shad Robert Eckley ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0092
Filed August 2, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHAD ROBERT ECKLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wright County, Paul B. Ahlers,
District Associate Judge.
The defendant challenges his sentences for eluding and operating while
intoxicated. AFFIRMED.
Charles J. Kenville of Kenville Law Firm, P.C., Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Defendant Shad Eckley was convicted of eluding, in violation of Iowa
Code section 321.279(2) (2016), and operating while intoxicated, in violation of
Iowa Code section 321J.2. The district court sentenced the defendant to a term
of incarceration not to exceed two years for the former offense and a determinate
term of incarceration of one year for the latter offense, said sentences to be
served concurrently. On appeal, the defendant contends the district court
abused its discretion in imposing sentence by exercising a fixed sentencing
policy or by focusing on a single factor. Specifically, the defendant contends the
district court focused exclusively on his criminal history in imposing sentence.
The district court’s sentence is cloaked with a strong presumption of
regularity, and we will not vacate sentence absent an abuse of discretion. See
State v. Floyd, 466 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990). To establish an
abuse of discretion, the defendant must show the sentencing court exercised its
discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” State v. Privitt, 571 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1997). “In exercising
its discretion, the district court is to weigh all pertinent matters in determining a
proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending
circumstances, the defendant’s age, character, and propensities or chances for
reform.” State v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994).
The defendant has not established the district court abused its discretion
in imposing sentence. At the time of sentencing, the district court explicitly stated
it considered the following factors in crafting the defendant’s sentence: age,
employment history, family circumstances, criminal history, the defendant’s
3
demeanor during the sentencing hearing, the defendant’s substance-abuse
history and needs, the defendant’s mental-health history and needs, the facts
and circumstances of the offenses, the information contained in the presentence
investigation report, and any other information presented during the sentencing
hearing. These are all relevant and permissible considerations. See id. Eckley’s
challenge to his sentences is without merit. We affirm the defendant’s sentences
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a) and (e).
AFFIRMED.