State of Iowa v. Latisha Dawn Mayse ( 2014 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0513
Filed October 29, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LATISHA DAWN MAYSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Martha Mertz,
Judge.
Defendant contends the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
her. AFFIRMED.
Nicholas A. Bailey of Bailey Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Altoona, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Heather R. Quick, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael K. Jacobsen, County Attorney, and Scott Nicholson, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Latisha Mayse was convicted of possession with intent to deliver
methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c)(6) and
124.413 (2013). At the sentencing hearing, the State and the defense made a
joint recommendation for a suspended sentence. After reviewing the
presentence investigation report, hearing the arguments of counsel, and hearing
from the defendant, the court sentenced Mayse to an indeterminate term of
incarceration not to exceed ten years, with a one-third mandatory minimum,
which was reduced one-third due to Mayse’s guilty plea. On appeal, Mayse
argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Specifically,
she argues the district court impermissibly relied on false information contained
in the presentence investigation report and impermissibly relied on the fact
Mayse failed to appear for prior hearings in this matter.
The district court’s sentence is cloaked with a strong presumption of
regularity, and we will not reverse a sentence absent an abuse of discretion. See
State v. Floyd, 466 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990). To establish an
abuse of discretion, the defendant must show the sentencing court exercised its
discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” State v. Privitt, 571 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1997). “In exercising
its discretion, the district court is to 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. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994).
3
After review of the record, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in imposing sentence. At the sentencing hearing, Mayse challenged
certain statements contained in the presentence investigation report. We note if
the court is not going to rely on contested statements contained in the
presentence investigation report, the best practice is to specifically disavow such
reliance. Although the court did not make any explicit statement as to how the
court was going to treat the challenges, in context it is clear the court eschewed
reliance on the contested parts of the presentence investigation report. Instead
of relying on the contested portions of the presentence investigation report, the
district court explained that Mayse was not a good candidate for probation due to
Mayse’s past failure to comply with probation:
You were noncompliant with probation before so the odds
from my perspective that you’re going to be compliant in the future
are probably very low.
I don’t doubt that you mean what you say at this moment,
but I do see that your actions in the past have not been consistent
with what you’re saying now. And if my only method for judging
how you’re going to do in the future is based on how you’ve done in
the past . . . . [y]ou weren’t in compliance with your last probation.
The district court also noted that Mayse’s conduct showed Mayse was essentially
“thumbing [her] nose at the court system.” The district court also explained that
granting Mayse probation “certainly doesn’t protect the community.” The
sentencing court’s consideration of Mayse’s propensity for reform and how best
to protect the community from further offenses by Mayse were pertinent and
permissible considerations. See Iowa Code § 907.5(1); Johnson, 513 N.W.2d at
719. The district court’s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.