State of Iowa v. Jason David Nicholson ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0799
Filed April 22, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JASON DAVID NICHOLSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Mary Ann
Brown, Judge.
Jason D. Nicholson appeals the sentence following his guilty plea to
second-degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, Amy Beavers, County Attorney, and Lisa Schaffer, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
Jason D. Nicholson appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to
second-degree theft. Nicholson claims the district court erred when it sentenced
him because it failed to strike the sentencing recommendation in the presentence
investigation report (PSI) as the report contained inaccurate information. We
affirm on appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule
21.26(1)(a) and (e).
Nicholson was charged with second-degree theft and operating a motor
vehicle without the owner’s consent. Nicholson entered into a plea agreement
with the State and pled guilty to second-degree theft. The State agreed to
dismiss the operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent charge and
the parties would argue sentencing after a PSI was ordered.
The PSI recommended a five-year prison term, a minimum fine, and
restitution. Claiming the PSI contained inaccuracies,1 Nicholson filed written
objections and moved to strike the PSI recommendation. The State objected to
striking the entire recommendation and suggested rescheduling the sentencing
hearing for the PSI to be corrected. The district court declined to strike the
recommendation, but noted the inaccuracies in the PSI and stated: “I recognize
that the presentence investigation had some inaccurate information and,
hopefully, I’ve been able to glean from your testimony that you’ve presented by
witnesses, as well as what your attorney says, a more accurate record of your
1
The inaccuracies included: juvenile offenses with unclear dispositions, the omission of
multiple offenses that did result in convictions, the fact Nicholson has custody of his two
children, and the classification of Nicholson’s crime as a “crime against a person”
instead of a “property crime.”
3
background than perhaps what the presentence investigation tells me.” The
court sentenced Nicholson to an indeterminate five-year term of imprisonment, a
minimum fine, and ordered him to pay victim restitution of $1664.50.
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724
(Iowa 2002). We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an
abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d at 724.
In sentencing a defendant, the district court is directed to receive and
examine:
all pertinent information, including the presentence investigation
report and victim impact statements, if any, the court shall consider
the following sentencing options. The court shall determine which
of them is authorized by law for the offense, and of the authorized
sentences, which of them or which combination of them, in the
discretion of the court, will provide 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 (2013).
Upon our review of the sentencing proceeding, we find the court did not
rely on the inaccuracies in the PSI or the sentencing recommendation—the court
relied on multiple relevant factors in crafting Nicholson’s sentence. Therefore,
we find the district court did not err in sentencing Nicholson and affirm.
AFFIRMED.