State of Iowa v. Gregory Earl Jordan ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 12-0314
    Filed June 25, 2014
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    GREGORY EARL JORDAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Todd A. Geer,
    Judge.
    A defendant appeals his conviction, based on his guilty plea, to second-
    degree theft as a habitual offender. AFFIRMED.
    Nathan W. Tucker of Tucker Law Firm, Davenport, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney
    General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and James J. Katcher and
    Brook Jacobsen, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
    Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Tabor, J., and Miller, S.J.*
    *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2013).
    2
    MILLER, S.J.
    A defendant appeals his conviction, based on his guilty plea, to second-
    degree theft as a habitual offender. The defendant failed to preserve error on his
    claim he did not knowingly and intelligently plead guilty because he did not file a
    motion in arrest of judgment. We conclude the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in sentencing defendant. We affirm his conviction and sentence.
    I.     Background Facts & Proceedings
    In 2006 Jordan was charged with theft in the second degree as a habitual
    offender. The State alleged he took merchandise from a department store that
    exceeded $1000 in value.       After a bench trial, Jordan was convicted.      His
    conviction was reversed on appeal and the case remanded for further
    proceedings. State v. Jordan, 
    779 N.W.2d 751
    , 756 (Iowa 2010) (finding the
    district court abused its discretion in finding there was not good cause for
    defendant’s late filing on his notice of diminished responsibility defense).
    While matters in this case were pending, Jordan was found guilty in 2011
    of possession of a controlled substance (cocaine base) with intent to deliver,
    failure to affix a drug tax stamp, disarming a peace officer of a dangerous
    weapon, and interference with official acts.      He entered into a plea bargain
    whereby he would plead guilty to the 2006 charge of second-degree theft as a
    habitual offender and the State would recommend the sentence for that
    conviction would be served concurrently to his sentences for the 2011 charges.
    Jordan entered his guilty plea on December 20, 2011.           He stated he
    “[w]ent out to the mall and stole some clothes,” and acknowledged the value of
    the merchandise exceeded $1000.         Jordan was sentenced in both cases on
    3
    January 26, 2012. On the charge of second-degree theft, Jordan was sentenced
    to a term of imprisonment of no more than fifteen years, to be served
    concurrently with his sentences on the other offenses.1 He now appeals.
    II.    Guilty Plea
    Jordan claims he did not knowingly and intelligently plead guilty because
    the district court failed to advise him he was waiving any objections to pretrial
    rulings and defenses to the charge. “Normally we review challenges to guilty
    pleas for correction of errors at law.” State v. Ortiz, 
    789 N.W.2d 761
    , 764 (Iowa
    2010).
    Jordan did not file a motion in arrest of judgment. “A defendant’s failure to
    challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding by motion in arrest of
    judgment shall preclude the defendant’s right to assert such challenge on
    appeal.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.24(3)(a). If a defendant has not filed a motion in
    arrest of judgment to challenge a guilty plea, the defendant has not preserved
    error on the claim. Ortiz, 789 N.W.2d at 764; State v. Nosa, 
    738 N.W.2d 658
    ,
    661 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007).
    There is an exception to this rule of error preservation if a defendant
    claims the failure to file a motion in arrest of judgment was due to ineffective
    assistance of counsel.        State v. Carter, 
    582 N.W.2d 164
    , 165 (Iowa 1998).
    Jordan has not framed his claim within the context of a claim of ineffective
    1
    As an habitual offender Jordan was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on each
    count. See 
    Iowa Code § 902.9
    (3) (2011). The sentence for disarming a peace officer of
    a dangerous weapon was made consecutive to the other sentences, but otherwise all
    the sentences were to run concurrently.
    4
    assistance of counsel, and we conclude he has failed to preserve error on his
    challenge to his guilty plea. See Nosa, 
    738 N.W.2d at 661
    .
    III.     Sentence
    Jordan claims the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him.
    He claims the court failed to (1) weigh all the pertinent factors, (2) adequately
    consider his diminished capacity, and (3) provide an opportunity for maximum
    rehabilitation.
    When a sentence is within statutory limits, it will be overturned only for an
    abuse of discretion. State v. Washington, 
    832 N.W.2d 650
    , 660 (Iowa 2013).
    “An abuse of discretion occurs when the court’s decision is based on a ground or
    reason that is clearly untenable or when the court’s discretion is exercised to a
    clearly unreasonable degree.”       State v. Becker, 
    818 N.W.2d 135
    , 140 (Iowa
    2012). Jordan was sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed fifteen
    years.     The sentence was within the statutory guidelines, and therefore, we
    review for an abuse of discretion. See 
    Iowa Code § 902.9
    (3) (2005).
    The court noted Jordan had “a horrendous criminal history,” and a history
    of drug use. The court noted he had not previously been successful on probation
    or parole.      The court stated Jordan was a danger to the community and
    expressed the hope he would be rehabilitated in prison. The court concluded by
    stating, “This sentence is appropriate for the reasons I have already stated along
    with your age, your history, your family situation, the nature of the offenses, your
    lack of progress on supervision, both parole and probation, and the fact that you
    are a demonstrated danger to the community.”
    5
    We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
    Jordan. The court stated on the record its reasons for selecting the sentence in
    this case. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). The reasons given by the court were
    appropriate. See 
    Iowa Code §§ 901.5
    , 907.5.
    We affirm Jordan’s conviction and sentence.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-0314

Filed Date: 6/25/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014