State of Iowa v. Tyler John Pohlman ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0985
Filed May 24, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TYLER JOHN POHLMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley,
District Associate Judge.
Tyler Pohlman appeals the sentences imposed upon his criminal
convictions. AFFIRMED.
Daniel M. Northfield, Urbandale, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Mullins, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
MULLINS, Senior Judge.
After his criminal trial commenced, Tyler Pohlman decided to plead guilty to
domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, domestic abuse assault by impeding
breathing or circulation of blood, and assault causing bodily injury. The terms of
the plea agreement included largely suspended prison sentences with credit for
time already served and two years of probation, with “[m]inimum fines to be
suspended, where applicable.” The parties’ joint sentencing recommendation
likewise included suspending the minimum fines “where applicable.” In
announcing its sentencing decision, however, the court noted it could not suspend
the fines on counts one and three—domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury
and assault causing bodily injury—both serious misdemeanors.1 See Iowa Code
§§ 708.2(2), .2A(2)(b). So the court did not do so, and Pohlman appealed following
the imposition of sentence.
On appeal, Pohlman argues the “sentence was overly harsh.” Specifically,
he complains the court imposed fines on counts one and three “despite the plea
agreement suspending the fines.”2 He “asks that his sentence be overturned with
the fines removed.” The State responds that the court had no discretion to
suspend the fines in any event. We side with the State for the following reasons.
1 However, the court provided Pohlman the option to perform community service
work of an equivalent value to the fines. See Iowa Code § 909.3A (2021). And
the court did suspend the fine on count two, an aggravated misdemeanor. See id.§ 708.2A(2)(d); see also id. § 903.1(2); State v. Ayers, 590 N.W.2d 25, 29–31
(Iowa 1999) (concluding section 903.1(2) provides sentencing court discretion to
suspend fines on aggravated misdemeanors).
2 We note from the outset that the plea agreement did not specifically call for
suspension of the fines. Rather, it called for suspension of the fines “where
applicable” or, in other words, when authorized by law.
3
We recently revisited the question concerning the district court’s discretion
to suspend fines on serious misdemeanors. See State v. Phillips,
No. 22-0659, 2023 WL 2672058, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023). Following
Ayers, we reiterated that under section 903.1(1)(b), fines—at least from a
standpoint of the general sentencing statute—cannot be suspended on serious
misdemeanors. See id.; see also Iowa Code § 903.1(1)(b) (providing maximum
and minimum penalties for simple and serious misdemeanors, “which fine shall not
be suspended by the court”); Ayers, 590 N.W.2d at 31 (categorizing “serious and
simple misdemeanor offenses as the class of offenses in which the sentencing
court cannot suspend a fine”). Our decision in Phillips specifically considered the
sentence imposed on a conviction for assault causing bodily injury and squarely
applies to Pohlman’s conviction of that offense here.
Turning to domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, Pohlman submits
the court is afforded discretion to suspend the fine by section 708.2A(7)(a), which
provides, in part, “a fine may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence” for
violations of section 708.2A(2). In its entirety, the provision provides as follows:
A person convicted of violating subsection 2 or 3 shall serve
a minimum term of two days of the sentence imposed by law, and
shall not be eligible for suspension of the minimum sentence. The
minimum term shall be served on consecutive days. The court shall
not impose a fine in lieu of the minimum sentence, although a fine
may be imposed in addition to the minimum sentence. This section
does not prohibit the court from sentencing and the person from
serving the maximum term of confinement or from paying the
maximum fine permitted pursuant to chapters 902 and 903, and does
not prohibit the court from entering a deferred judgment or sentence
pursuant to section 907.3, if the person has not previously received
a deferred sentence or judgment for a violation of section 708.2 or
this section which was issued on a domestic abuse assault.
4
We first observe that this provision applies to simple, serious, and
aggravated misdemeanor variations of domestic abuse assault. Going from there,
section 708.2A(7)(a) mandates that a person serve a minimum of two days of the
sentence, which cannot be suspended and the court cannot simply impose a fine
in lieu of. Cf. State v. Iowa Dist. Ct., ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2023 WL 3028128,
at *3–4 (Iowa 2023) (concluding fine-only sentence is not authorized by section
909.1 for third-offense possession of methamphetamine because section
124.401(5)(f) mandates imprisonment and placement on probation).
However, as Pohlman points out, “a fine may be imposed in addition to the
minimum sentence.” Iowa Code § 708.2A(7)(a). Because section 708.2A does
not provide fines specific to simple, serious, and aggravated domestic abuse
assault, we must then turn to the general sentencing statute for misdemeanors,
section 903.1. When we get there, as noted, section 903.1(2) provides the court
discretion to suspend a fine on aggravated misdemeanors, while section 903.1(1)
does not provide such discretion for simple and serious misdemeanors. So the
court may suspend any fine imposed in addition to the minimum sentence on an
aggravated misdemeanor variation of domestic abuse assault, but it may not
suspend any fine imposed in addition to the minimum sentence on the simple and
serious misdemeanor variations.
Because the district court was correct in concluding it could not suspend the
fines on these serious misdemeanors, we find no legal error or abuse of discretion
and affirm the sentences. See State v. Patten, 981 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 2022)
(setting forth standard of review).
AFFIRMED.