State of Iowa v. Jordan Garrett Mckim Crawford ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1409
Filed May 10, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JORDAN GARRETT MCKIM CRAWFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Lucy Gamon,
Judge.
Jordan McKim Crawford appeals the imposition of a seventy-percent
mandatory minimum sentence. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson and Nick Siefert, Assistant
Attorneys General, and Kadison Roberts, Law Student, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
Jordan McKim Crawford appeals the mandatory minimum sentence
imposed for his conviction of robbery in the second degree. Finding no abuse of
discretion, we affirm.
In 2018, Crawford participated in a series of offenses involving robbery and
selling drugs. A jury convicted Crawford of ongoing criminal conduct and robbery
in the first degree. State v. Crawford, 974 N.W.2d 510, 515 (Iowa 2022). In 2022,
the supreme court reversed his convictions, vacated his sentences, and remanded
the case to the district court to enter judgment convicting him of robbery in the
second degree and for resentencing. Id. at 526.
On remand, the district court complied with the supreme court’s instruction.
The court imposed a seventy-percent mandatory minimum as part of Crawford’s
sentence.1 Crawford appeals, asserting the district court abused its discretion “by
failing to take into account [Crawford]’s very minimal role in this offense” and
asserting the court should have instead imposed the fifty-percent mandatory
minimum.
“If the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, as it is here, we review
for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372, 385 (Iowa 2020).
“An abuse of discretion may exist if the sentencing court fails to consider a factor,
1Iowa Code section 902.12(4) (2022) requires a mandatory minimum sentence for
persons convicted of robbery in the second degree, giving the sentencing court
discretion to set the mandatory period “between one-half and seven-tenths of the
maximum term of the person’s sentence.” See Clayton v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 907
N.W.2d 824, 826 (Iowa Ct. App. 2017).
3
gives significant weight to an improper factor, or arrives at a conclusion that is
against the facts.” Id. at 387.
The court provided its reasons for ordering Crawford to serve a seventy-
percent mandatory minimum rather than fifty percent of the sentence term:
What I am considering is just as what is stated in [Iowa Code
section 901.11(4)], the defendant’s criminal record, which includes a
prior felony conviction for robbing a bank, and the validated risk
assessment in which the defendant scored in the high category for
future violence and moderate to high category for future victimization
according to the presentence investigation.
I’m also considering the negative impact the defendant had
on [the] victim or other persons. . . .
Now, I totally understand that this defendant is not charged
with holding the gun and robbing the bank. He is charged and
convicted with aiding and abetting in that robbery in the second
degree and his involvement in the robbery has been outlined by the
State, I believe, accurately.
But, again, pursuant to the statute, the court is required to
consider the negative impact this offense of aiding and abetting
robbery second degree had on the victim and other persons; and I
believe it’s appropriate for me to consider the victim or other persons’
testimony in this case.
The court did consider Crawford’s role in the robbery when weighing the
circumstances for sentencing. Given the circumstances of this case, we find no
abuse of discretion and affirm Crawford’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.