State of Iowa v. Jake Wallen ( 2021 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0161
Filed October 6, 2021
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAKE WALLEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley,
District Associate Judge.
Jake Wallen appeals the sentences imposed by the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, and Kyle Crocker, Law Student, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Schumacher, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
Jake Wallen pled guilty to driving while barred. He pled guilty to second-
degree theft in a separate case. Finally, he admitted to probation violations in a
third case.
The district court sentenced Wallen to prison terms not exceeding two years
on the driving-while-barred charge and five years on the theft charge, to be served
concurrently. The court revoked Wallen’s probation and ordered the two
concurrent sentences to be served consecutively to the sentence in the third case.
On appeal, Wallen contends “[t]he district court abused its discretion when
it ordered [him] to serve prison sentences.” See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98,
105–06 (Iowa 2020) (setting forth standard of review). In his view, “the court
should have suspended the sentence[s] of incarceration and placed him on
probation.” He cites his acquisition of “full-time employment and a residence of his
own” and a presentence investigation report recommending a suspended
sentence on the theft plea.
In imposing prison terms, the district court considered the mitigating factors
cited by Wallen but weighed them against the “aggravating” “facts and
circumstances” in the theft case, particularly Wallen’s abuse of “the trust of an
individual who cared about him.” The court also considered Wallen’s “criminal
history” dating back to 2014 and the “community supervision” he was under at the
time of the theft offense, which “evidently did not deter” him “from future and
continued criminal conduct.” And the court “consider[ed] the recommendation that
was indicated in the presentence investigation report.”
3
The court provided a detailed statement of reasons for requiring the
sentences to be served consecutively to the sentence in the probation revocation
case, including Wallen’s “extended period of continuous probation” with scant
“evidence of” rehabilitation, “the nature of the offense, the circumstances under
which it was committed, the fact that [Wallen was] already on a supervised
probation at the time that the new offense was committed,” and the fact Wallen
previously had a “residential facility placement.”
We discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s sentencing decision.
Though the recommendation of the presentence investigator “is a factor that could
influence the sentencing decision,” a court “is not bound to follow” the
recommendation. See State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 557 (Iowa 2015). As in
Damme, “[t]he court extensively evaluated mitigating and aggravating factors
presented in the [presentence investigation report], and it ultimately determined
that [the defendant’s] conduct, criminal history, and failure to rehabilitate despite
numerous opportunities outweighed the mitigating factors.” 944 N.W.2d at 107.
We affirm Wallen’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.