State of Iowa v. Shane W. Trimble ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 16-2181
    Filed September 13, 2017
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    SHANE W. TRIMBLE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Casey D. Jones,
    District Associate Judge.
    The defendant appeals the sentence imposed after his guilty plea for
    driving while barred. AFFIRMED
    Thomas J. Viner of Viner Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
    Attorney General, for appellee.
    Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
    2
    POTTERFIELD, Judge.
    On January 14, 2016, it was alleged that Shane Trimble was driving his
    motor vehicle while barred. Cedar Rapids police officers stopped Trimble when
    a license plate check revealed the vehicle he was driving had been stolen. The
    police officers then reviewed Trimble’s driving record with the Iowa Department
    of Transportation and discovered he was barred from driving.
    On February 15, the State charged Trimble with the crime of driving while
    barred, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 321.560 and           321.561 (2016).    On
    December 7, Trimble filed a guilty plea and a waiver of rights. The guilty plea
    described Trimble’s plea bargain with the State as “60 days in jail with credit, 300
    days suspended, minimum fine [illegible amount], and one year unsupervised
    probation.”
    Following the acceptance of Trimble’s guilty plea, the court sentenced
    Trimble to 360 days imprisonment with all but sixty days of the term suspended,
    pursuant to the agreement of the parties.      In its sentencing order, the court
    stated:
    The reasons for this sentence include information provided to the
    court at sentencing and as set out in the court file herein, including
    the defendant’s age, family circumstances, education, prior criminal
    record, the facts and circumstances of this offense, and the belief
    that this sentence will provide the greatest benefit to the defendant
    and the community. The court has also considered the parties’
    plea agreement.
    Trimble appealed, claiming the sentence was not appropriate. Trimble
    also claims the sentencing court abused its discretion by failing to state on the
    record its reasons for sentencing.      The State claims proper discretion was
    exercised because the sentence was within the statutory guidelines and the
    3
    factors articulated in the sentencing order were sufficient. We agree with the
    State.
    Sentencing decisions issued within the statutory guidelines are reviewed
    for an abuse of discretion. State v. Letscher, 
    888 N.W.2d 880
    , 883 (Iowa 2016);
    State v. Seats, 
    865 N.W.2d 545
    , 552 (Iowa 2015). An abuse of discretion occurs
    when the district court “exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to
    an extent clearly unreasonable,” or when the ground or reason is “not supported
    by substantial evidence or . . . is based on an erroneous application of the law.”
    State v. Hill, 
    878 N.W.2d 269
    , 272 (Iowa 2016). “We give sentencing decisions
    by a trial court a strong presumption in their favor.”      State v. Hopkins, 
    860 N.W.2d 550
    , 553 (Iowa 2015). “In exercising discretion, the district court must
    ‘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. Thacker, 
    862 N.W.2d 402
    , 405 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted).
    The maximum penalty for an aggravated misdemeanor is a term of
    imprisonment not to exceed two years. See Iowa Code § 903.1. Here, the court
    sentenced Trimble to 360 days. The court then suspended all but sixty days of
    the sentence. The sentence was within the statutory guidelines and supported
    by the parties’ plea agreement. See State v. Snyder, 
    336 N.W.2d 728
    , 729 (Iowa
    1983) (holding a sentence adopting the parties’ plea agreement is “not the
    product of the exercise of trial court discretion but of the process of giving effect
    to the parties’ agreement”).
    4
    Moreover, the record shows the sentencing court considered the proper
    factors when issuing the sentence, including the defendant’s age, family
    circumstances, education, prior criminal record, the facts and circumstances of
    the offense, benefit to the defendant and community, and the parties’ plea
    agreement. The court’s analysis was sufficient to “weigh all pertinent matters in
    determining a proper sentence.”       See 
    Thacker, 862 N.W.2d at 405
    .        The
    sentencing court did not abuse its discretion.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-2181

Filed Date: 9/13/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/13/2017