State of Iowa v. Brandon Howard Cornelison ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0031
Filed August 15, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRANDON HOWARD CORNELISON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda,
District Associate Judge.
Brandon Cornelison appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to
second-degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Brandon Howard Cornelison pled guilty to second-degree theft. See Iowa
Code §§ 714.1(4), 714.2(2) (2015). The district court denied Cornelison’s request
for a deferred judgment, sentenced him to a prison term not exceeding five years,
suspended the term, placed him on formal probation for three years, and imposed
a fine.
On appeal, Cornelison argues the district court “employ[ed] a fixed
sentencing policy rather than making an individualized sentencing determination.”
Our review is for an abuse of discretion. See id. § 901.5 (requiring the court to
consider which of the authorized sentences “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”); State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d
57, 62 (Iowa 1999).
The district court provided the following reasons for refusing to grant a
deferred judgment:
[D]eferred judgments are opportunities generally for people
who have never been in trouble before. They are either young and
don’t know any better, or they’re older and they’ve never been in this
trouble before, and it’s something that, again, is somewhat out of
character. Given—given the extent of your criminal record, the fact
. . . you’d only been off probation about three months from a prior
theft charge when this offense occurred, the Court does not believe
that deferral of judgment is appropriate.
The court next explained “the positive things” Cornelison had been doing, as well
as factors identified in the presentence investigation report. Based on these
factors, the court suspended the prison term.
3
Contrary to Cornelison’s assertion, the district court did not apply a fixed
policy against imposition of deferred judgments. See State v. Jackson, 204
N.W.2d 915, 916 (Iowa 1973) (“The imposition of the same penalty for every traffic
violation of the same classification whether a misdemeanor or infraction, under a
predetermined fixed policy cannot satisfy a statutory requirement for the exercise
of discretion.”). The court exercised its discretion, and we discern no abuse of
discretion in the court’s sentencing decision.
AFFIRMED.