State of Iowa v. Zachary Scott Penning

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1660
Filed August 17, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ZACHARY SCOTT PENNING,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, Margaret L.
Lingreen, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his sentence for domestic abuse assault.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia A. Reynolds,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Alexandra Link, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and McDonald, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Zachary Penning appeals from his sentence for domestic abuse assault,
an aggravated misdemeanor, pursuant to Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(b)
(2015). Penning maintains the district court abused its discretion when it
sentenced him pursuant to a plea agreement without stating further reasons on
the record for the sentence imposed.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On September 18, 2015, Penning was charged by trial information with
domestic abuse assault, second offense. As part of a plea agreement, Penning
entered a written guilty plea. In exchange for the plea, the State recommended
Penning receive a one-year sentence with all but thirty days suspended and two
years of formal probation, to run concurrent with Penning’s sentence in another
case. The agreement was not binding on the court.
A few days later, the court accepted Penning’s plea and filed an order
pronouncing judgment and sentence. The court sentenced Penning in
accordance with the State’s recommendation, as agreed to by Penning, and
listed “nature of offense, plea agreement, [and] prior record” as reasons for the
sentence.
Penning appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We will not reverse a sentence “absent an abuse of discretion or some
defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 838
(Iowa 2010), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275
(Iowa 2016).
3
III. Discussion
Penning maintains the court abused its discretion when it gave effect to
the plea agreement without providing reasons on the record for the sentence.
In a recent case, our supreme court reaffirmed the principle that when a
district court simply imposes a sentence agreed to by the parties, it does not
exercise discretion in a manner requiring an explanation or statement of reasons
on the record. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 410 (Iowa 2015) (stating if
the court exercised no discretion in sentencing other than to accept the plea
agreement, the court should ensure the plea agreement is part of the record, but
if the court departed from the plea agreement, the court has exercised discretion
and must make a statement on the record explaining its decision).
Penning urges us to overrule this recent case and interpret Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) to require a sentencing court to state on the record
its reason for selecting a particular sentence, even if the court is only giving effect
to the plea agreement of the parties. “We are not at liberty to overturn Iowa
Supreme Court precedent.” See State v. Hastings, 466 N.W.2d 697, 700 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1990). Thus, we affirm Penning’s sentence.1
AFFIRMED.
1
As the State notes, even if we were at liberty to overturn supreme court precedent, it is
not clear that Penning would receive the relief he requests. Here, the district court listed
the plea agreement and two other reasons—Penning’s prior record and the nature of the
offense—for the sentence imposed. We routinely uphold sentences where the court has
provided a handful of reasons for that specific sentence. See State v. Thompson, 856
N.W.2d 915, 921 (Iowa 2014) (“In this age of word processing, judges can use forms . . .
to check boxes indicating the reasons why a judge is imposing a certain sentence. . . . If
the sentencing order does not have boxes . . . , the judge can use his or her word
processor to insert the reasons for a particular sentence.”); see also Hennings, 791
N.W.2d at 838 (Iowa 2010) (stating a court’s reasons for selecting a sentence may be
“terse and succinct”).