State v. Wilkinson ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0759
Filed December 20, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT BLAYNE WILKINSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Robert E. Sosalla,
Judge.
Robert Wilkinson appeals the revocation of his deferred judgment and the
sentence imposed. AFFIRMED.
Cory J. Goldensoph, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ.
2
MULLINS, Judge.
Robert Wilkinson pled guilty to attempting to elude. The district court
granted Wilkinson a deferred judgment and placed him on probation for three
years. Approximately two months later, the State filed an application for
adjudication of guilt and sentencing, as well as a report of violation for
Wilkinson’s probation. The initial report of violation and several subsequent
addendums that were filed over the next several months alleged numerous
probation violations on the part of Wilkinson, including: being cited for driving
while barred; being arrested upon a second occurrence of driving while barred;
admitting to using methamphetamine and subsequently providing a urine
specimen that tested positive for the same; failing to attend appointments or
make contact with his probation officer; and failing to maintain a suitable
residence.
At a hearing on the State’s application, in response to the district court’s
inquiry as to whether he wanted an evidentiary hearing, Wilkinson admitted he
violated his probation by driving while barred on one occurrence, failing “to report
for some random urine samples,” and using methamphetamine. After being
informed of the rights he was giving up by making any admissions, the court
asked if the substance of the reports of violation and addendums were
substantially correct. Wilkinson stated he would merely disagree with “some of
the dates of . . . the scheduled appointments.” His attorney then stated Wilkinson
was admitting to driving while barred and using methamphetamine. The court
concluded Wilkinson violated the terms of his probation. The court revoked
Wilkinson’s deferred judgment, adjudicated him guilty of attempting to elude,
3
imposed a suspended fine and term of incarceration, and placed him on
probation for three years. As a condition of his probation, the court ordered
Wilkinson to reside in a supervisory residential facility for one year or until
maximum benefits are obtained, whichever occurrs first.
Wilkinson appeals. He contends the district court (1) improperly
considered unproven conduct in deciding to revoke his deferred judgment and
impose sentence and (2) abused its discretion by imposing an excessive
sentence.
With regard to the revocation issue, a full opinion in this case would not
augment or clarify existing case law, and we affirm the district court’s decision
without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e); see also State v. Kline, No.
12-0366, 2013 WL 3291865, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 26, 2013) (noting an
admission of violation will satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence requirement
for revocation and stating “[e]ven the defendant’s silence in response to a direct
question can be considered as supporting a probation revocation”).
Regarding Wilkinson’s excessive-sentence argument, he had been
previously granted a deferred judgment and placed on probation for a felony
eluding charge. Although he disagreed with the exact dates of his subsequent
probation violations, he admitted to violating his probation in numerous respects,
including committing another serious traffic offense and using methamphetamine.
Under these circumstances, we conclude the district court did not abuse its
discretion in selecting the sentence imposed, nor do we conclude the sentence
was excessive.
4
We affirm the district court’s revocation of Wilkinson’s deferred judgment
and its sentencing decision in its entirety.
AFFIRMED.