State of Iowa v. Shannon Christopher Turner ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 18-1599
    Filed April 17, 2019
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    SHANNON CHRISTOPHER TURNER,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling,
    Judge.
    Shannon Turner appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating
    while intoxicated and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
    JohnPatrick Brown and Katherine Drummond of Winstein, Kavensky &
    Cunningham, LLC, Rock Island, Illinois, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant
    Attorney General, for appellee.
    Considered by Vogel, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Scott, S.J.*
    *Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
    2
    VOGEL, Chief Judge.
    On December 18, 2017, Shannon Turner drove a woman to her home while
    he was intoxicated. Upon arrival, Turner attempted to invite himself into the home,
    but the woman refused. According to the woman, he then tried to kiss her. He
    was able to forcefully undress her and pull his boxer shorts down around his knees.
    She pushed him away many times and repeatedly stated, “No,” but Turner
    continued to attempt intercourse with her. The woman was able to discreetly call
    emergency services, and law enforcement intervened.             Turner pled guilty to
    operating while intoxicated, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(b) (2017),
    and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code section
    709.11(3).
    The sentencing hearing was held on September 13, 2018. At the hearing,
    the State recommended incarceration based on the seriousness of the crime. It
    noted Turner’s lack of criminal history but argued “when you hit it out of the ballpark
    in your first offense like in this case, the punishment needs to fit the crime.” Next,
    Turner and his counsel presented many mitigating factors, including his lack of
    criminal history prior to this incident, his remorse, his willingness to pay any
    restitution to the victim, his family’s dependence on him and his income, and the
    presentence investigation (PSI) report’s recommendation of probation.1
    In delivering the sentence, the district court stated,
    This is, in terms of criminal sentencing, somewhat of an individual
    and unique circumstance in that we have a crime of personal sexual
    assault against a person made by a Defendant who has a very
    minimum other criminal history.
    1
    The PSI report was prepared on September 6. The report’s recommendation was
    probation based on Turner’s low likelihood of future violence and future victimization.
    3
    That being said, the assaultive crime in this matter . . . has
    been properly described by the victim as an attempt to sexually
    assault her, and that’s perfectly accurate. But for the intervention of
    law enforcement, this could have been a much, much more serious
    criminal charge against the Defendant.
    . . . The court has read the presentence investigation, is
    aware that the PSI recommends probation. The Court has heard the
    Defendant’s request for a deferred judgment . . . .
    However, based on the fact that this is a crime of violence,
    that it was a sexually predatory crime of violence, in order to protect
    the public, and also based on the Defendant’s substance abuse
    history, his treatment options available, and also his family
    circumstances, the court believes that the recommendation for
    sentencing as set forth by the State is the appropriate sentence in
    this matter, that incarceration is called for because of this horrific
    event . . . .
    The district court imposed a sentence not to exceed two years of incarceration for
    each offense, to run concurrently. He now appeals.
    For sentences within the statutory limits, our review is for an abuse of
    discretion. State v. Gordon, 
    921 N.W.2d 19
    , 24 (Iowa 2018). “We will find an
    abuse of discretion when ‘the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or
    for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.’” 
    Id. (quoting State
    v.
    Thompson, 
    856 N.W.2d 915
    , 918 (Iowa 2014)). Turner argues the district court
    abused its discretion and failed to consider all relevant factors and possible
    sentencing options when sentencing him.
    At the sentencing hearing, the victim spoke about the incident and stated,
    “It doesn’t matter whether [Turner] had been drinking or not. There is no excuse
    for [his] actions, and I do not deserve to be attacked and sexually assaulted. No
    always means no.” She also indicated Turner took away her sense of safety and
    that she participates in weekly counseling sessions, necessitating taking time off
    from work and suffering financially.     Turner also spoke at the hearing and
    4
    presented many mitigating factors, including his family’s dependence on him and
    his lack of criminal history.
    “After receiving and examining all pertinent information, including the
    presentence investigation report and victim impact statements, . . . the court shall
    consider the . . . sentencing options.” Iowa Code § 901.5. While “[a] sentencing
    court has a duty to consider all the circumstances of a particular case,” the court
    is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a
    defendant.”    State v. Boltz, 
    542 N.W.2d 9
    , 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). When
    delivering its decision, the district court noted the sentence was appropriate “based
    on the fact that this is a crime of violence, that it was a sexually predatory crime of
    violence, in order to protect the public, and also based on [Turner’s] substance
    abuse history, his treatment options available, and also his family circumstances.”
    The district court did acknowledge both the PSI report’s recommendation and
    Turner’s lack of criminal history; however, it noted the “horrific event” could have
    escalated into a more serious crime had it not been for law enforcement’s
    involvement. Based on the record and the district court’s reasoning, we do not find
    the sentence was unreasonable. See State v. Formaro, 
    638 N.W.2d 720
    , 725
    (Iowa 2002) (stating “our task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made
    by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable
    grounds”). Therefore, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion when
    sentencing Turner. See 
    Gordon, 921 N.W.2d at 24
    .
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1599

Filed Date: 4/17/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2019