State of Iowa v. Alan Walker

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-2131
Filed January 25, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALAN WALKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael G.
Dieterich, District Associate Judge.
Alan Walker appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
to fifteen counts of sexual exploitation of a minor. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia A. Reynolds,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Alan Walker pled guilty to fifteen counts of sexual exploitation of a minor.
The district court sentenced him to indeterminate two-year prison terms on each
count, to be served consecutively, for a total sentence not exceeding thirty years.
The Iowa Supreme Court summarily reversed the sentence and remanded for
resentencing.
On remand, the district court imposed the same sentence. Walker
appealed. He contends (1) the district court failed to give “specific reasons for
consecutive sentences,” and (2) the district court “abused its discretion by
imposing the harshest possible sentence without properly considering the many
mitigating factors.” Our review of these issues is for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).
I. The district court must state reasons for imposing consecutive
sentences. See id. at 274. The record should indicate “whether the stated
reasons for the sentence appl[y] to both the decision to reject [a] request for a
suspended sentence and the decision to make [a] sentence consecutive.” Id.The record so indicates. The district court stated:
All right. Mr. Walker, I’m going to lay out the reasons for the
sentence I’m about to impose so you can understand everything
I’ve considered. First, I’ve considered all parts of the PSI, with the
exception of those parts objected to by your first attorney, Mr.
Monroe. To your credit, you pled guilty. That’s a bonus for that.
You had admitted in the PSI that you know that that kind of activity
hurts children. I’ve considered your family background. I’ve
considered some of your mental history. I’ve considered the fact of
your age and your Hepatitis C. I’ve considered your past criminal
history and lack thereof. However, one thing that sticks out in my
mind as the sentencing judge is each of these acts were essentially
separate acts and crimes involving children who were victims. My
responsibility is to deter others from similar conduct in the
3
community, and the sentence I’m going to impose is for further
maximum protection of the community and gives substantial
opportunity for you to have some rehabilitation for mental health
while incarcerated. And again, when I say these are reasons for
my sentence, these are also reasons for the length of sentencing—
my form of sentencing I’m going to impose. Again, there are fifteen
separate acts of criminal conduct involving fifteen victims. It’s an
important consideration for this judge. I’m going to on each count
impose a sentence of two years, and they will run consecutive on
all counts.
(Emphasis added.) Because the district court explicitly applied the reasons for
imposition of a prison term to the decision to impose consecutive sentences and
reiterated its reliance on the number of separate crimes Walker committed, we
conclude the court satisfied its obligation under Hill. See 878 N.W.2d at 274.
II. A district court is not obligated “to specifically acknowledge each
claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1995). Here, the district court acknowledged several mitigating
circumstances including Walker’s remorse, his family background, and his history
of mental illness. In the end, the court weighed the number of separate crimes
and the fact they involved children more heavily. We discern no abuse of
discretion in this balancing of the relevant factors.
AFFIRMED.