State of Iowa v. Nathaniel Ray Deal

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 20-0668
Filed November 30, 2020
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
NATHANIEL RAY DEAL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Zachary S.
Hindman, Judge.
A defendant appeals his prison sentence for possession with intent to
deliver cocaine. AFFIRMED.
Priscilla E. Forsyth, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Ahlers, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Highlighting “a history of criminal conduct” and “a history of noncompliance
with correctional supervision in the community,” the district court sentenced
Nathaniel Deal to an indeterminate ten-year prison term for possession with intent
to deliver cocaine. Deal appeals, contending the court placed too much weight on
his mistakes from years ago instead of his current circumstances. Finding no
abuse of discretion in the court’s decision, we affirm.1
In the summer of 2018, Deal was patronizing Uncle Dave’s Bar in Sioux City
when police arrested him on four outstanding warrants. During the arrest, Deal
dropped five bags of cocaine, each weighing about half a gram. He also
possessed two bags of marijuana.
The State charged Deal with possession with intent to deliver cocaine, a
class “C” felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(2) (2018) and
possession of marijuana, third offense, an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation
of section 124.401(5). In November 2019, he pleaded guilty to the felony count.2
In January 2020, Deal failed to appear for his sentencing hearing. The State
1 To begin, Deal has good cause to appeal his sentence as required under Iowa
Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2020). See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103–
05 (Iowa 2020) (discussing recent statutory amendment and holding “good cause
exists to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant
challenges his or her sentence rather than the guilty plea”). We review sentences
for correction of legal error. Id. at 103. We will reverse only if we detect “an abuse
of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” Id. An abuse occurs
when the sentencing court exercised its discretion “on grounds or for reasons
clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Pappas, 337
N.W.2d 490, 493 (Iowa 1983).
2 Deal also entered a written guilty plea to the aggravated misdemeanor and
received a separate sentence on that conviction, not at issue here.
3
charged him with failure to appeal but dismissed that charge before the
rescheduled April sentencing hearing.
At that hearing, the State asked the court to impose an indeterminate
ten-year prison term to match the recommendation in the presentence
investigation (PSI) report. Deal asked for probation. To strengthen his request,
he offered eleven letters of support.3 Deal also testified that he had inherited a
construction business from his father, who passed away in November 2019.4 Deal
told the court: “[H]opefully I’m able to get out and get it going.” He attributed his
past probation failures to “a lot of dumb decisions” he made when he was younger.
Deal told the court his outlook had changed:
[A]fter my father dying, I have no room for simple mistakes as I made
in the past. I am 40 years old right now. . . . I have a daughter that’s
going to be a senior this year. I’m doing everything I possibly can to
be a good father to the other six kids that I have. I’m just tired of
running in and out of jail.
After considering Deal’s statements, as well as the exhibits and counsels’
recommendations, the court imposed a sentence not to exceed ten years. 5 The
court weighed a host of sentencing factors, including “rehabilitation needs and
rehabilitation propensity of the defendant, the need to protect the community from
further offenses by the defendant, the defendant’s age, the nature and
3 Many letter writers lauded Deal’s community involvement, especially his
commitment to coaching youth basketball.
4 The record is unclear as to whom Deal refers to as his father. The PSI from June
2019 reports that Deal “never knew his father as he was deceased prior to his birth.”
The PSI also reports that Deal had “no contact and no relationship” with his stepfather,
who lived in Mississippi.
5 The court told Deal that for his marijuana conviction, it would impose “a
concurrent term of incarceration so there won’t be any additional time you will
serve as a result of that.”
4
circumstances of the offense, and the defendant’s criminal history, work history,
family history, and everything set forth in the [PSI] report.” See Iowa Code § 901.5(explaining court should consider rehabilitation of defendant and protection of
community in sentencing). The court recognized Deal had been a positive
influence on “a lot of people” and welcomed a new business opportunity. But the
court ultimately decided Deal was “not a good candidate for probation” because of
his unsuccessful probation history.
Deal insists that decision was “unreasonable” because of his “clear potential
for further rehabilitation in the community.” He asks us to remand for resentencing
so the court may consider his positive contributions and “his desire and ability to
change at this point in his life.”
Because Deal’s prison sentence falls with statutory limits, it carries “a strong
presumption in its favor.” See Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 105–06. As appellate
judges, our job is not to proclaim what sentence we would have imposed. State
v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 545 (Iowa 2015). Rather, we limit our review to
deciding whether the sentence imposed was reasonable considering the relevant
factors. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002). Here, the district
court took into account Deal’s personal situation and his community involvement.
But the court gave greater weight to his unpromising record of violating the
conditions of his probation for past offenses. That balancing was a proper exercise
of its discretion. Having found no abuse of discretion, we decline to order
resentencing.
AFFIRMED.