State of Iowa v. Matthew Alan Reynolds ( 2019 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 18-0832
Filed April 3, 2019
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MATTHEW ALAN REYNOLDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Carla T. Schemmel,
Judge.
The defendant challenges his sentence, arguing the district court should
have granted him probation instead of sentencing him to a term of imprisonment.
AFFIRMED.
Tabitha L. Turner of Turner Law Firm, PLLC, West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Matthew Reynolds pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with
intent to deliver (marijuana), second or subsequent offense; failure to affix a drug
tax stamp; and possession of a controlled substance (heroin), third offense. The
district court ordered Reynolds to serve three concurrent sentences for a total
term of incarceration not to exceed fifteen years. On appeal, Reynolds maintains
the court abused its discretion by imposing a term of incarceration rather than
granting his request for probation.
“Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence
is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of
discretion.” State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). To establish an
abuse of discretion, “the defendant must demonstrate the court’s sentencing
decision was based on clearly untenable grounds or reasons, or the court
exercised it discretion to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Adams, 554
N.W.2d 686, 693 (Iowa 1996). The sentence imposed by the district court is
“cloaked with a strong presumption in” its favor. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225.
Reynolds maintains the court abused its discretion because its decision to
impose the long prison sentence rather than grant his request for probation
“focuses more on the punishment factor than any rehabilitation or deterrence
factor.” The sentencing court is charged with determining the sentence that “will
provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the
protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others.”
Iowa Code § 901.5 (2018). Additionally, “[i]n exercising discretion, the district
court must ‘weigh all pertinent matters in determining a proper sentence,
3
including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant’s
age, character, and propensities or chances for reform.’” State v. Thacker, 862
N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 2015) (citation omitted).
Here, the State urged the court to impose a term of incarceration, noting
that according to Reynolds’s admissions to the preparer of the presentence-
investigation report, he continued to use opiates daily after his arrest in
September 2017 until February 8, 2018. Reynolds missed his original plea date
of February 5, claiming he was entering inpatient drug treatment, which he did
not do on that date. He entered treatment on February 8 and was later
discharged as unsuccessful. He did not complete a substance-abuse treatment
program before sentencing on April 27, 2018. The State argued a prison term
was the best option for Reynolds’s rehabilitation as it would provide him “a long
period of forced sobriety.”
In pronouncing sentence, the court stated:
Sir, this is a tragic case, there is no doubt about that, but I
am required, sitting on this bench and deciding what the sentence
should be, to consider not only what’s good for you, good for your
child, good for your family, but also what is most protective of
individuals, citizens of the state of Iowa.
This is not the first time you’ve been in here. This is not your
first go-around with drug addiction—or addiction. And I find,
looking at what you have attempted to do since your arrest, at least
in my estimation, is insufficient to address the problems that you
have.
I want you sober, I want you not using, and I want you with
your son, but I have a lot of other considerations.
....
Sir, again, I tell you, I—if you would have gone into treatment
last fall and been successful, you would have been a different
person in here right now; you did not do that. And I can’t change
that and you can’t change that. And if losing your son is what woke
you up, that’s still in place. And I urge you to go to prison to take—
to make available anything you possibly can as far as addressing
4
your addiction. There are courses, there are classes in prison that
you can take, you’ll have to sign up for, to get yourself sober and
back to the human being that’s fully functioning and non-drug using
and non-selling, that we hope.
You’re going to have to do that. If not, your life is just going
to be a downhill slide; you know that. There are people in the back
of this room who care about you a very grave amount, who you’ve
hurt a very grave amount. And not only your child, but the rest of
your family that’s true of. And nobody can do it, no one can do it
except yourself. This is your chance to do that, and I urge you to
do so, and I do truly wish you the best of luck and success.
Based on the record before us, the district court did not ignore its duty to
impose the sentence it determined would provide Reynolds with the maximum
opportunity for rehabilitation. Although the district court did not accept
Reynolds’s claims that he could be successful in achieving sobriety if granted
probation, Reynolds has not established that the sentence imposed by the court
was based “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable,” nor was its choice
“clearly unreasonable” under the circumstances. See State v. Bentley, 757
N.W.2d 257, 262 (Iowa 2008) (providing standard for determining an abuse of
discretion); see also State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (“In the
end, a court makes each sentencing decision on an individual basis and seeks to
fit the particular person affected.”).
We affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED.