State of Iowa v. Henry Lamont Myles ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0995
Filed April 13, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
HENRY LAMONT MYLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark Fowler, Judge.
Henry Myles appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences upon his
criminal convictions. AFFIRMED.
Jonathan M. Causey of Causey & Ye Law, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2
BADDING, Judge.
Henry Myles appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences upon his
guilty-plea1 convictions for third-degree kidnapping and assault while participating
in a felony, both as a habitual offender, resulting in dual terms of imprisonment not
to exceed fifteen years with mandatory minimums of three years.2 See Iowa Code
§§ 902.8, .9(1)(c).
In arguing the district court abused its discretion, Myles initially downplays
the circumstances of the crimes, arguing that “this was a drug situation gone bad”
and that the crimes were both “part of a continuous act.” He also points to his age
in comparison to the length of his sentence, contending the court “essentially
sentenced him to incarceration equivalent to nearly seventy percent of his life.”
Primarily though, Myles challenges the presentence investigator’s description of
him as a “career criminal” and faults the allegedly “skewed, incomplete, and
inflammatory” presentence investigation report’s failure to discuss his upbringing,
family circumstances, and social history as mitigating circumstances.
But Myles offers no meaningful argument as to how the court abused its
discretion in imposing sentence based on the information before it. He makes no
claim the court failed to consider the nature of the offenses, his age, or the
mitigating circumstances it was made aware of. The court gave the defense an
1 The State concedes that Myles has “good cause” to appeal because he is
challenging the sentences imposed instead of his guilty pleas. See Iowa Code
§ 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2020); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Iowa 2020).
2 Myles was contemporaneously sentenced on convictions for second-degree
burglary and second-degree theft in two other criminal cases. Those sentences
were ordered to run concurrently with the consecutive sentences challenged in this
appeal.
3
opportunity to make any additions or corrections to the presentence investigation
report, but none were offered concerning the mitigating circumstances Myles now
claims were not investigated. Defense counsel did highlight those mitigating
circumstances and others in conjunction with the defense’s request for the
imposition of concurrent sentences. Although the court did not specifically mention
every single mitigating factor in reaching its decision, it was not “required to
specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by the defendant.” State
v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
It is true the court noted the presentence investigation report’s description
of Myles as a “career criminal.” But the court did not consider that description in
isolation without context. Instead, it recited the following excerpt from the report:
The defendant is a career criminal. His behavior has remained
consistent since he was 20 years old. When he is not incarcerated
he has continued to commit crimes and buck any attempts at
supervision, guidance, or direction. It’s worth noting the defendant
has had his parole revoked five times while in his 20s. Within the
last five years he was twice removed from the department’s work
release center by U.S. Marshals while on federal parole. He pled
guilty to a possession of contraband in a correctional institution . . .
two years ago, and was placed on probation with this department.
He incurred four new charges before being unsuccessfully
discharged from probation 14 months ago. Since then, Mr. Myles
has incurred seven new charges, including the three felonies
presently before the Court.
Before and after this recitation, the court disavowed from its consideration any
criminal acts that were not accompanied by an admission or adjudication of guilt.
As Myles acknowledges, “[i]mposition of consecutive sentences is
permissible where (1) the offenses are separate and distinct and where (2) the
district court provides reasoning for why consecutive sentences are warranted in
the particular case.” State v. Spurgeon, No. 20-1612, 2021 WL 3661227, at *3
4
(Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2021). While Myles suggests the crimes were both “part
of a continuous act,” consecutive sentences may be imposed on separate
convictions even if the “offenses were committed in the course of a single
transaction.” State v. Criswell, 242 N.W.2d 259, 261 (Iowa 1976) (citation omitted).
So we are left with the mandate that the court provide sufficient reasoning
for imposing consecutive sentences. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d); State v. Hill,
878 N.W.2d 269, 273 (Iowa 2016). The court explained the reasoning for its
decision as follows:
[T]he reason is the long criminal history, the amount of crimes that
were committed even after you’ve been on parole, you’ve been in
prison. You’re 42 years old; at some point in time you should know
better. And I do think you pose a threat to the community. I do think
you have a lot of work to do, but I appreciate the work you’ve already
done.
On our review, we find the district court’s explanation sufficient to allow appellate
review and justify the imposition of consecutive sentences. See State v. Jacobs,
607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.