State of Iowa v. Mychael Richard Patten ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 21-0101
    Filed December 15, 2021
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    MYCHAEL RICHARD PATTEN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Lee (North) County, John M. Wright,
    Judge.
    Mychael Patten appeals his sentences, asserting the State breached the
    plea agreement. AFFIRMED.
    Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant
    Appellate Defender, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
    Attorney General, for appellee.
    Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Vogel, S.J.*
    *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
    (2021).
    2
    VOGEL, Senior Judge.
    In November 2020, Mychael Patten pleaded guilty to: (Count 1) domestic
    abuse assault, strangulation with bodily injury; (Count 2) child endangerment,
    substantial risk; (Count 3) assault with a dangerous weapon; and (Count 4) false
    imprisonment. The plea results from a report by Patten’s wife that he assaulted
    her, threatened her with a firearm, and confined her in their home all while their
    three-year-old daughter was present. As part of a plea agreement, Patten and the
    State jointly agreed to recommend suspended sentences to run consecutively for
    a total suspended term of incarceration of ten years. On January 8, 2021, the
    district court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Patten to terms of
    incarceration not to exceed five years for Count 1, two years for Count 2, two years
    for Count 3, and 365 days for Count 4 with credit for time served and the remaining
    time suspended. Counts 2 and 3 ran concurrently with each other and consecutive
    to Count 1, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed seven years. The
    suspended sentence of Count 4 also ran consecutively to the other sentences.
    Patten appeals, arguing the State breached the plea agreement through the
    prosecutor’s statements at sentencing.1
    We review a claim the State breached a plea agreement for correction of
    errors at law. State v. King, 
    576 N.W.2d 369
    , 370 (Iowa 1998). “The relevant
    inquiry in determining whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement is
    1 A defendant does not have the right to appeal from a guilty plea unless “the
    defendant establishes good cause.” 
    Iowa Code § 814.6
    (1)(a)(3) (2021). Patten
    asserts he has good cause to appeal because he claims the State breached the
    plea agreement. See State v. Boldon, 
    954 N.W.2d 62
    , 69 (Iowa 2021) (finding
    good cause for appeal when the defendant claims the State breached the plea
    agreement). The State agrees Patten established good cause.
    3
    whether the prosecutor acted contrary to the common purpose of the plea
    agreement and the justified expectations of the defendant and thereby effectively
    deprived the defendant of the benefit of the bargain.” Boldon, 954 N.W.2d at 71
    (quoting State v. Frencher, 
    873 N.W.2d 281
    , 284 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015)). “Where
    the prosecutor has agreed to make a particular sentencing recommendation, the
    prosecutor must do more than ‘simply inform[ ] the court of the promise the State
    has made to the defendant with respect to sentencing. The State must actually
    fulfill the promise.’” 
    Id.
     (alteration in original) (quoting Frencher, 873 N.W.2d at
    284).
    At sentencing, the prosecutor explained the State’s recommendation:
    Your Honor, the State is asking that the Court adopt the plea
    agreement that is outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report
    that was agreed to by the parties.
    For the Court’s information, the sole reason for this
    recommendation by the State is based on conversations with the
    victim herself. And ordinarily that doesn’t necessarily drive the
    State’s recommendation, but based on the conversations with her
    and her sincere desire for the Defendant to be able to have a
    relationship with his daughter, she felt that that was of utmost
    importance and priority to give him this opportunity for a suspended
    sentence on these matters . . . .
    ....
    But for the Court’s information, that is the sole driving force
    and the reason for the State’s recommendation in this matter.
    Patten argues the prosecutor “implied her disapproval” of the recommended
    sentence by pointing to the victim’s wishes as “the sole driving force” behind the
    recommendation. See State v. Bearse, 
    748 N.W.2d 211
    , 218 (Iowa 2008) (“Our
    system of justice . . . does not allow prosecutors to make sentencing
    recommendations with a wink and a nod.”); see also State v. Horness, 
    600 N.W.2d 294
    , 299 (Iowa 1999) (finding the prosecutor is required “to present the
    4
    recommended sentences with his or her approval, to commend these sentences
    to the court, and to otherwise indicate to the court that the recommended
    sentences are supported by the State and worthy of the court’s acceptance”).
    In imposing Patten’s sentences, the district court noted it “considered the
    entire Presentence Investigation Report” and provided the following explanation to
    Patten:
    You’re twenty-nine years old. You’re not a youthful offender.
    You do have a high school education. However, there are two
    factors that weigh heavily in my decision. One is your criminal
    history. And the fact that you were on probation for a felony at the
    time you committed these crimes clearly indicates to the Court that
    you had no intention of obeying the law.
    While I understand how [your counsel] is trying to paint a
    picture of you complying with the terms of probation, he does admit
    that there is a huge gap there, a hole in his argument on your behalf,
    because you committed these offenses while you were being
    rehabilitated by the State of Iowa. So clearly probation was not
    effective.
    And the other point that I would make is that these are very
    serious crimes.
    Patten’s counsel then clarified Patten was on probation for an aggravated
    misdemeanor2 and had no prior felony convictions. The court acknowledged it
    misspoke and continued:
    [T]he conviction for which he was serving probation was of a serious
    nature. And regardless if it was an aggravated misdemeanor or a
    felony, the fact that he was on probation at the time that he
    committed these offenses clearly indicates to the Court that he has
    no ability or desire for that matter to abide by the terms and
    conditions of his probation.
    2 The Presentence Investigation Report states Patten was convicted of invasion of
    privacy in October 2019 and sentenced to two years of probation with a
    requirement that he register as a sex offender for ten years.
    5
    The court’s thorough explanation makes clear the court considered the big
    picture in sentencing Patten to incarceration, regardless of how forcefully the
    prosecutor emphasized the State’s recommendation of a suspended sentence.
    Furthermore, the prosecutor never referred to the sentencing factors the court
    cited: Patten’s age, education, criminal history and probation violation, and the
    seriousness of his offenses.      While the Presentence Investigation Report
    recommended      incarceration,   the    prosecutor    never    mentioned     this
    recommendation nor suggested the court ignore the State’s recommendation. At
    most, the prosecutor’s reference to the victim’s wishes justified a suspended
    sentence when the facts may otherwise call for incarceration, thereby providing
    the court with a reason to impose a suspended sentence. We cannot find the
    prosecutor explicitly or implicitly disapproved of the State’s recommendation of a
    suspended sentence or otherwise indicated incarceration would be more
    appropriate. See Boldon, 954 N.W.2d at 72 (finding “the prosecutor expressed no
    material reservation regarding the plea agreement”). Therefore, we reject Patten’s
    claim the State breached the plea agreement.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-0101

Filed Date: 12/15/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/15/2021