State of Iowa v. Aaron Dion Michael Hanson Gales, Jr. ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0794
Filed May 10, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AARON DION MICHAEL HANSON GALES, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Henry W. Latham II,
Judge.
The defendant challenges his sentence, arguing the district court abused
its discretion in imposing consecutive terms of incarceration. AFFIRMED.
Jessica A. Millage of Flanagan Law Group, PLLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2
GREER, Judge.
In FECR416645, Aaron Hanson Gales Jr. pled guilty to escaping from
custody after being convicted of a felony, which is a class “D” felony. See Iowa
Code § 719.4(1) (2021). Later, at a combined sentencing hearing for
FECR416645 and three other cases, Hanson Gales was sentenced to a term of
incarceration not to exceed five years for escaping from custody. The court
ordered him to serve the sentence concurrently with the sentence the court
imposed in FECR4081491 and consecutively to the sentences the court imposed
in FECR4191582 and FECR420322.3 Hanson Gales argues the district court
abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison and running the sentence
consecutive to other terms of incarceration. He points to his “young age,” claiming
it should have been a strong mitigating factor, and maintains the court’s brief
explanation for the sentence is insufficient.
As the State recognizes, Hanson Gales has good cause for this appeal.
See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). We review his sentence
for correction of errors at law. See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa
2002). A sentence that conforms to the statute “is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or
1 The district court revoked Hanson Gales’s deferred judgment for second-degree
theft and imposed the original five-year sentence in FECR408149.
2 A jury convicted Hanson Gales of dominion and control of a firearm by a felon
and possessing a short-barrel rifle or shotgun in FECR419158; the court
sentenced him to five years of incarceration for each charge but ordered them to
be served concurrently (for a total of five years).
3 In FECR420322, Hanson Gales pled guilty to two counts of assault on persons
in certain occupations causing bodily injury; the court sentenced him to two years
of incarceration on each count and ordered him to serve them consecutively (for a
total of four years).
3
the consideration of inappropriate matters.” Id. An abuse of discretion is only
found if we can “discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons
that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id.The combined sentencing hearing took place in two parts. First, Hanson
Gales stipulated to his probation violation in FECR408149, and the State
recommended revoking Hanson Gales’s deferred judgment and probation and
imposing the original five-year sentence for second-degree theft. The district court
agreed with the State’s recommendation and addressed Hanson Gales as follows:
Sir, it’s unfortunate that you were not able to meet the terms
of probation as I set forth originally in this case. I was hoping that it
would give you an opportunity to remain in the community, but,
unfortunately, I do not believe that’s an option at this time and that a
period of incarceration is appropriate based on your plea of guilty.
Then Hanson Gales’s first attorney was excused, and his second attorney—the
attorney for his remaining three cases—took over.
In making its recommendation as to the final three cases, the State urged
the court to impose a mix of concurrent and consecutive terms for a total not to
exceed twelve years. The State explained its reasoning as follows:
I feel that’s appropriate given primarily Mr. Hanson Gales’s
young age, I believe he’s about 19 years old,[4] and his criminal
history, which is not as long as some that we see come through here,
but is not insignificant. But what gives the State a lot of cause for
concern and is primarily the reason for recommending that any of
these counts run consecutive to each other is that these cases
represent that Mr. Hanson Gales is a danger to the community and
that there is nothing really less restrictive that can accomplish the
goals of sentencing, being the rehabilitation of the Defendant and the
protection of the community.
And I think that the rehabilitation of the Defendant is likely
going to take a little while. He was in the [residential corrections
4Based on the birth date listed in the presentence investigation report, Hanson
Gales was twenty-one at the time of sentencing.
4
facility] and struggled there before leaving without permission. And
then while he was out on escape status while still on probation, he
committed new crimes. And then was brought into the jail, and then
while he was in the jail, committed crimes against jail staff there,
being the assaults on peace officers. So the State feels that there
is, frankly, nothing that can really prevent Mr. Hanson Gales from
continuing to commit new crimes as that is what his behavior over
the last year has indicated. And even in incarceration, frankly, can’t
really prevent him from committing new crimes, but can at least limit
who he is committing these crimes against, being people who are at
least [ostensibly] signing up for that by working in a jail or Department
of Corrections facility. It’s not ideal, but I think it’s the only thing that
can really protect the rest of the community from his criminal
behavior.
The only other reason I think any kind of concurrent sentence
is appropriate for him is given his young age. He’s not very old.
There is some hope that he can rehabilitate himself and change. But
I do think that a long sentence is necessary to show him that that
type of behavior will not be tolerated and will not be condoned and
just, frankly, to protect the community from him doing similar
activities to other people.
So I think concurrent sentences would be inappropriate and
not enough to defer further criminal behavior, but, likewise, I think if
everything were run boxcarred for 24 years, that would be excessive
given his age. So the State’s landed on a recommendation of 12
years with his revocation and the new cases combined.
Through his attorney, Hanson Gales argued for a term of incarceration not to
exceed seven years. He focused on his “young age” and noted that, while he had
spent 173 days in county jail, he had never been to prison. Recognizing Hanson
Gales was already sentenced to a prison term in the probation-revocation case,
his attorney argued:
He understands that he’s going to go to prison, and he has
indicated that he is going to take advantage of all of the resources
that are available to him. And let’s hope he does that. But let’s give
him an opportunity to be able to see the light at the [end] of the tunnel,
so to speak, to know what he has got to do.
So I’m asking for those to be run concurrent to one another,
judge. And here is where the heavy lifting starts. I’m going to ask
that the Short-Barrel Shotgun, that’s FECR419158, and the
Dominion and Control, that those run concurrent to one another,
5
and—here’s the heavy lifting—that they are concurrent to the Escape
and to the probation violation.
Now, why I ask that is that would give him five years on the
three [“D” felonies] that he has. I’m not going to be asking for a
concurrent sentence on the Assault on Persons in Certain
Occupations. That’s a bridge too far. So I’m asking that those two
two-year sentences run concurrent to one another, but consecutive
to the three [other cases] that are run concurrent. That would be a
total of seven years. It’s less than [the prosecutor] wants for those
12 years, but that is still going to give Aaron a significant time in jail
for him to figure out—or not jail, in prison to figure out that if I don’t
modify my behavior, I will be back here and back here and back here.
....
He has never really had the consequences—because these
things came up so quick, he never really had the consequences.
Well, now the consequences are here, judge. I am just asking you
to give him something that [he can] look forward to knowing that if he
has seven years as opposed to 12 years, that if he engages in all of
the activities that the prison has to offer, all the programs, all of the
things that Aaron told me that he wants to do to better himself, he
can be out in a couple of years, he will be on parole, and then we’ll
see how he does.
After Hanson Gales personally told the court what he would like it to consider, the
court imposed sentence, stating:
Mr. Hanson Gales, it’s my duty under the law to review what’s
available to me in terms of community resources and to determine
what the appropriate rehabilitative plan would be for you. I also have
to consider the serious nature of all of the offenses that you have
plead[ed] guilty to or have been found guilty of, and the effect that it
has had upon the community, and the safety of the community, to be
quite honest, and your willingness to accept change and treatment
to address your needs. I look at the least restrictive alternatives first
and then proceed to the more restrictive alternatives.
I have reviewed your entire Presentence Investigation Report
for the purposes of today’s sentencing, but I have not considered any
of the entries in the criminal history section that do not reflect an
admission of guilt or a finding of guilt in regards to those offenses.
It is true, Mr. Hanson Gales, you’re very young. But to be
honest with you, sir, I’m very concerned with the serious nature of
these offenses. Most particularly, the fact that you had dominion and
control of a firearm, and the type of firearm that you had, and the
assault on correctional officers. That’s very concerning to me.
Correctional officers are there to help. Probation officers are there
to help. And I respect what they do in trying to help Defendants. And
6
I’m very concerned about the fact that you had control of a very
serious firearm. I’m also concerned about the expectations of
rehabilitation in regards to yourself.
....
The sentences that I have imposed will be served as follows:
FECR41664[5] will be served concurrently with FECR408149. The
sentences imposed in FECR419158 under Counts 1 and 2 shall be
served concurrently, but that sentence shall be served consecutive
to the sentences imposed in FECR4018149 and FECR416645. The
sentences imposed in FECR420322, Counts 7 and 8, shall be served
consecutively and also consecutive to the sentences imposed in
FECR408149, FECR416645 and FECR419158.
The reason for the consecutive sentencing is due to the
serious nature of the offenses in both FECR420322 and
FECR419158 and the Defendant’s criminal history.
As the district court’s stated reasoning shows, the court properly considered
Hanson Gales’s age as a factor in reaching its sentencing decision. See Formaro,
638 N.W.2d at 424–25 (“It is . . . important to consider the host of factors that weigh
in on the often arduous task of a sentencing a criminal offender, including the
nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the age, character and
propensity of the offender, and the chances of reform.”). While Hanson Gales
believes the district court should have relied on his young age of twenty-one years
old and shown more leniency, this argument does not point to an abuse of
discretion by the court. See Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 106 (recognizing sentencing
courts are “afforded . . . a significant amount of latitude because of the
‘discretionary nature of judging’” (citation omitted)); State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d
590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (“Each judge must grapple with the facts and circumstances
in the case before him and arrive at the sentence he regards as right. The right of
an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate
sentence inheres in the discretionary standard.” (internal citation omitted)).
Hanson Gales’s “mere disagreement with the sentence imposed, without more, is
7
insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion.” State v. Pena, No. 15-0988, 2016
WL 1133807, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016).
And while the district court’s explanation of why it was ordering Hanson
Gales to serve the five-year sentence in this case consecutive to his sentences in
other cases was “terse and succinct,” we are able to review the district court’s
exercise of discretion in imposing the sentences at this omnibus hearing. State v.
Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted); see State v. Victor,
310 N.W.2d 201, 205 (Iowa 1981) (concluding the sentencing court met the
requirement to provide reasons for the sentence imposed when “[t]he brevity of the
court’s statement of reasons” did not prevent “review of the sentencing discretion”
because it was “clear from the trial court’s statement exactly what motivated and
prompted the sentence”); see also State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016)
(requiring courts to “explicitly state the reasons for imposing a consecutive
sentence, although in doing so the court may rely on the same reasons for
imposing a sentence of incarceration”).
Because Hanson Gales has not shown the court abused its discretion in
reaching its sentencing decision and the court’s explanation of its decision, while
concise, is sufficient for our review, we affirm Hanson Gales’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.