State of Iowa v. Emmanuel Berryman , 919 N.W.2d 767 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 17-1978
    Filed June 6, 2018
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    EMMANUEL BERRYMAN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Joel W. Barrows,
    Judge.
    A defendant appeals his sentences. AFFIRMED.
    Les M. Blair III (until withdrawal) and Stuart G. Hoover of Blair &
    Fitzsimmons, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
    General, for appellee.
    Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
    2
    VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
    Emmanuel Berryman appeals the sentences imposed following his pleas of
    guilty to possession of a controlled substance and failure to affix a drug-tax stamp,
    in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(5) and 453B.12 (2016). The plea
    agreement called for the State to dismiss a third, pending charge and to agree not
    to resist supervised probation if deemed appropriate. The plea agreement was
    conditioned on the court’s acceptance.
    After accepting the guilty pleas, the court ordered the preparation of a
    presentence investigation (PSI) report, which recommended incarceration. At
    sentencing, the district court followed the recommendation of the PSI report and
    imposed a six-month term of incarceration on the possession conviction and a five-
    year term of incarceration on the drug-tax-stamp conviction, with the sentences to
    run concurrently to each other, along with fines, surcharges, and court costs.
    Berryman’s driver’s license was also suspended for 180 days. In determining the
    sentence, the district court stated:
    The reasons for the sentence, frankly, are your significant
    criminal history, the recommendation of the PSI author and the
    reasons stated in there for the recommendation, previous problems
    on supervision, as well as numerous failures to appear that the Court
    notes there.
    Berryman appeals claiming the district court abused its discretion in not
    suspending the sentences and placing him on probation with conditions that he
    obtain a substance-abuse evaluation, comply with treatment recommendations,
    and maintain employment. When a sentence falls within statutory limits, the
    sentence is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 
    865 N.W.2d 545
    , 552
    (Iowa 2015).    A sentencing court abuses its discretion when the sentencing
    3
    decision is based on grounds that are clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v.
    Formaro, 
    638 N.W.2d 720
    , 724 (Iowa 2002).
    In applying the abuse of discretion standard to sentencing decisions,
    it is important to consider the societal goals of sentencing criminal
    offenders, which focus on rehabilitation of the offender and the
    protection of the community from further offenses. 
    Iowa Code § 901.5
     (2001). It is equally important to consider the host of factors
    that weigh in on the often arduous task of sentencing a criminal
    offender, including the nature of the offense, the attending
    circumstances, the age, character and propensity of the offender,
    and the chances of reform.
    
    Id.
     at 724–25.
    The record reflects the district court properly considered the relevant factors
    in constructing Berryman’s sentences. The district court paid appropriate attention
    to Berryman’s “significant criminal history” and his “previous problems on
    supervision.” Despite Berryman’s claims that his criminal history was “really not
    that bad” and his only problems on supervision occurred when he was young, we
    see nothing in the record that indicates the sentences were based on clearly
    untenable or unreasonable grounds. Accordingly, we conclude the district court
    did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Berryman.
    Therefore, we affirm Berryman’s sentences.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-1978

Citation Numbers: 919 N.W.2d 767

Filed Date: 6/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023