State of Iowa v. Brent Alan Olmstead ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1053
Filed July 20, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRENT ALAN OLMSTEAD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Buchanan County, Andrea J. Dryer,
Judge.
Brent Olmstead appeals the district court’s decision to sentence him to a
term of imprisonment not exceeding five years following his conviction for second-
degree theft. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Badding, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
A jury found Brent Olmstead guilty of second-degree theft. The district court
entered judgment of conviction and sentenced him to a prison term not exceeding
five years. On appeal, Olmstead contends the district court should not have
sentenced him to prison. In his view, the court inappropriately considered his
employment and housing circumstances in rejecting the recommendations of the
presentence investigation preparer and the prosecutor.
“The sentencing court has broad discretion to impose the sentence it
determines is best suited to rehabilitate a defendant and protect society.” State v.
West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, ____, 2022 WL 2080218, at *7 (Iowa 2022) (citing
Iowa Code § 901.5 (2020)). A sentence “will only be overturned for an abuse of
discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Wilbourn, 974
N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022).
The district court provided comprehensive reasons for declining to suspend
the sentence and place Olmstead on supervised probation, as the presentence
investigation report preparer recommended, or have him placed on supervised
probation and complete one year at a residential facility, as the prosecutor
recommended. The court summarized Olmstead’s “criminal history,” noting
Olmstead served “jail terms,” “probation supervision for one of [the convictions,]”
and a “[residential facility] placement for one of them.” The court commented that
Olmstead’s “behavior when he was to be meeting with the [d]epartment of
[c]orrectional [s]ervices and getting the presentence investigation report
completed” did “not reflect favorably on [his] ability to comply with the terms and
conditions of probation.” The court further suggested Olmstead’s “employment
3
status,” namely the loss of his most recent job after a short period, as well as his
“lack of a stable residence” did not “reflect favorably on [his] ability to comply with
the terms and conditions of probation.” In light of these circumstances, the court
expressed “significant reservations about placing . . . Olmstead on probation
supervision at all, whatever the conditions.” The court recognized the manner in
which it was “assessing the circumstances” differed “from the way the presentence
investigator assesse[d] them” and it was “not the recommendation of the State”
and “certainly not what [Olmstead] would [have] like[d] to have happen.” But the
court reiterated that Olmstead was not “an appropriate candidate for probation
supervision in the community at all, whether there [was] residential facility
placement or not.”
The court’s description of Olmstead’s precarious employment and housing
situations finds support in the presentence investigation report. The preparer
advised the court Olmstead would “need[] to maintain verifiable employment and
not change employment without prior approval from his probation officer.” The
preparer also noted that Olmstead was sent “[a] reminder to provide his exact
address” and had “not responded as of the writing of this report.”
We discern no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning, nor do we
discern a consideration of inappropriate factors. See State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002) (noting “the court must . . . consider the defendant’s
prior record of convictions or deferred judgments, employment status, family
circumstances, and any other relevant factors”). Olmstead’s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.