State of Iowa v. Jason Edward Trotter ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1502
Filed July 13, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JASON EDWARD TROTTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Greene County, Derek J. Johnson,
Judge.
Jason Trotter appeals his sentences, asserting the court abused its
discretion. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2
BOWER, Chief Judge.
Jason Edward Trotter appeals his sentences for criminal mischief in the first
degree, theft in the second degree, and possession of methamphetamine third or
subsequent offense. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
At 2:31 a.m. on January 12, 2021, the owner of an automotive repair shop
called 911, reporting three individuals were cutting and removing engine parts from
a tow truck at his business. Based on a witness report, police soon located Trotter
with two others. The police observed a cutting tool as they exited their vehicle,
and a later search revealed additional cutting tools, engine parts, illegal narcotics,
and drug paraphernalia. All three individuals were arrested.
Trotter was charged with criminal mischief in the first degree, theft in the
second degree, possession of methamphetamine third or subsequent offense, and
trespass, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(5), 714.1, 714.2, 716.1,
716.3, 716.7, 716.8, and 902.8 (2021). For each of the first three offenses, he was
charged as a habitual offender.
Pursuant to an agreement, Trotter pleaded guilty to the criminal-mischief,
theft, and possession offenses, and the State dismissed the habitual offender
sentencing enhancements and the trespass charge. Each party was free to argue
for any lawful sentence.
At sentencing, the State recommended imprisonment for all three offenses,
with the statutory ten-year and five-year terms for criminal mischief in the first
degree and theft in the second degree to run concurrently to each other but
consecutive to the five-year term for possession of methamphetamine, third or
3
subsequent offense. Trotter requested the sentences run consecutively but be
suspended. A presentence investigation report recommended sentencing Trotter
to suspended prison terms for each of the three offenses and placing Trotter on
probation for two to five years.
The court imposed concurrent prison sentences. Trotter appeals.
II. Standard of Review.
“Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law.” State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted).
A sentencing court’s decision to impose a specific sentence
that falls within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of
discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters. When a
defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the
statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of
discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing
court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.
Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
III. Discussion.
On appeal, Trotter alleges the district court abused its discretion by failing
to consider all the sentencing options before imposing a term of imprisonment.
Specifically, he argues the court should have considered special terms and
conditions for a stricter probation, including quasi-incarceration sanctions such as
electronic monitoring or work release.
During sentencing, the court informed Trotter it had “considered all the
sentencing options provided for in Iowa [Code] chapters 901 and 907.” The court
listed the factors it considered, including Trotter’s “terrible” criminal history with
multiple felony convictions with suspended sentences and terms of probation, the
4
facts and circumstances of this offense, and Trotter’s family circumstances. The
court noted, “My job is to impose the sentence that I believe will protect the
community and rehabilitate you. Probation has not worked, bottom line. You still
commit offenses.” After imposing a term of imprisonment, the court explained,
Mr. Trotter, I don’t impose this sentence because I don’t
appreciate your circumstances. It’s just that efforts of rehabilitation
have failed. You continue to commit crimes. I am hoping that
incarceration will send a message that you no longer want to commit
crimes because probation didn’t work. You just kept committing
them. . . . You put yourself here. It was your circumstances, your
choices. I imposed this sentence because it does provide for your
rehabilitation and protection of the community. And I’ve already
indicated what factors I relied upon.
The court weighed all the relevant facts and circumstances, considered the
sentencing options available, and made the decision it deemed the best balance
between Trotter’s need for rehabilitation and the protection of the community. The
court’s exercise of discretion was not “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable
or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. (citation omitted). We conclude the
sentencing court did not abuse its discretion and affirm Trotter’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.