State of Iowa v. Renee Alice Kimbrough ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0424
Filed December 21, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RENEE ALICE KIMBROUGH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Wyatt Peterson,
Judge.
Renee Kimbrough appeals her sentence for operating while intoxicated,
second offense. AFFIRMED
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Ahlers, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Presiding Judge.
Renee Kimbrough appeals the prison sentence imposed for her sixth
operating-while-intoxicated (OWI) offense. The offense was originally charged as
OWI, third offense, a class “D” felony, but the parties reached a plea agreement.
In return for the State reducing the charge to OWI, second offense, an aggravated
misdemeanor, and dismissing a separate charge, Kimbrough pleaded guilty to the
amended charge.
At sentencing, Kimbrough and the State both argued for some combination
of jail time and suspended jail time. The district court chose not to follow either
recommendation and imposed the maximum period of incarceration, an
indeterminate term not to exceed two years to be served in prison.
Kimbrough appeals. She contends the State breached the plea agreement
by not adequately advocating for a suspended sentence and the district court
abused its discretion by sending her to prison instead of placing her on probation.
I. Jurisdiction and Standard of Review
A defendant, such as Kimbrough, who pleads guilty to an offense other than
a class “A” felony is prohibited from appealing unless the defendant can establish
good cause. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022). As Kimbrough alleges
breach of the plea agreement and challenges the sentence imposed, she has good
cause to appeal. See State v. Davis, 971 N.W.2d 546, 554 (Iowa 2022) (holding
that an appeal claiming the prosecutor breached the plea agreement with respect
to a sentencing recommendation is a challenge to the sentence imposed, rather
than to the plea itself, and constitutes good cause under section 814.6(1)(a)(3));
State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (“We hold that good cause
3
exists to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant
challenges his or her sentence rather than the guilty plea.”).
We review criminal sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law.
Davis, 971 N.W.2d at 553. Unless there is an abuse of discretion or a defect in
the sentencing procedure, we do not reverse a sentence. Id.
II. Analysis
As noted, Kimbrough raises two issues, which we address in turn.
A. Breach of the Plea Agreement
Kimbrough asserts the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by failing
to “strongly advocate for the recommended plea agreement sentence.” Plea
agreements are essentially contracts. Id. at 556. A prosecutor’s violation of “‘the
terms or spirit of a plea agreement’ require[s] reversal of the conviction or vacation
of the sentence.” Id. (citation omitted). To assess Kimbrough’s claim, we must
first determine the terms of the agreement. The terms are spelled out in
Kimbrough’s written guilty plea, which she and her attorney signed:
As shown, the plea agreement as articulated by Kimbrough and her attorney called
for the parties to “argue sentencing,” which we take to mean an open sentencing
at which each party could argue for any sentence the party deems appropriate.
4
The fact that the plea agreement left the parties free to “argue sentencing” is
confirmed by the State’s plea proposal attached to Kimbrough’s written guilty plea.
As the terms of the plea agreement called for open sentencing, the State
was not obligated to make any particular sentencing proposal. Therefore,
regardless of what sentence the State proposed, or how zealously the State
argued for it, there was no breach of the plea agreement. Although it is a moot
point given the agreement for open sentencing, we note that the State
recommended a sentence of one hundred eighty days in jail with all but thirty days
suspended—a much lighter sentencing recommendation than the State could
have made given its freedom to argue for any sentence.
There was no breach of the plea agreement. Therefore, Kimbrough’s
challenge on this basis fails.
B. Sentencing Discretion
Kimbrough also argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing a
two-year prison sentence by not adequately considering and weighing the
recommendation of the presentence investigator, Kimbrough’s substance-abuse
struggles, and mitigating factors. A sentencing decision is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor. State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153, 171 (Iowa 2018). The
defendant has the burden of showing that the district court abused its discretion.
Id. Here, there is no claim that the sentence is not within statutory limits, so the
sentence “is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only be
overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate
matters.” See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002) (citing State v.
Pappas, 337 N.W.2d 490, 494 (Iowa 1983)).
5
To the extent Kimbrough is claiming abuse of discretion because the district
court did not follow the recommendation of the presentence investigator, we reject
the claim, as the court has no obligation to follow such a recommendation. See
State v. Grgurich, 253 N.W.2d 605, 606 (Iowa 1977). As to her remaining claims,
the district court considered proper factors and appropriately weighed them. The
court expressly considered the sentencing recommendations of the parties and the
recommendation of the presentence investigator. The court also specifically
considered Kimbrough’s education; employment history; substance-abuse issues
and needs; mental and physical health; the circumstances surrounding the
offense; and criminal history. All of these are proper factors to consider, and
Kimbrough does not claim otherwise. In considering those factors, the court
commented on how some were positives and some were negatives for Kimbrough.
As such, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s sentence.
III. Conclusion
As the State did not breach the plea agreement that called for open
sentencing and the district court considered and weighed proper factors, we affirm
the district court’s sentencing decision.
AFFIRMED.