State of Iowa v. Robert Conrad Storm ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0163
Filed April 26, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ROBERT CONRAD STORM,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.
The defendant challenges the district court’s decision to revoke his deferred
judgment and impose his original term of incarceration following a number of
probation violations. AFFIRMED.
Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Vaitheswaran, J., and Potterfield, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
POTTERFIELD, Senior Judge.
Robert Storm pled guilty to attempted burglary; he received a deferred
judgment and was placed on probation for two years. One of the requirements of
Storm’s probation was residing in a residential correctional facility for up to 365
days. Just a few months later, in November 2021, the judicial district department
of correctional services alleged Storm violated the terms of his probation by,
among other things, leaving the correctional facility without approval.
At the probation revocation hearing that followed, Storm admitted violating
the terms of his probation on October 26, 2021, when he returned to the
correctional facility more than one hour late and, upon his return, gave a breath
sample with a blood alcohol content of .046. The State alleged seven other
probation violations, which Storm did not admit; the State elected to proceed with
an evidentiary hearing on the remaining violations. Storm’s probation officer
testified for the State. Storm did not put forth a defense. At the conclusion of the
presentation of evidence, the district court orally ruled that all of the violations were
“established by a preponderance of the evidence through the testimony of the
State’s witness.”
After establishing the probation violations, the State asked the court to
revoke Storm’s deferred judgment and impose the original two-year sentence. The
district court agreed with the recommendation; it entered judgment against Storm
for attempted burglary and sentenced him to a term of incarceration not to exceed
two years (with credit for time previously served).
Storm appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion in revoking
his deferred judgment and sentencing him to a term of incarceration. He maintains
3
the district court “did not adequately consider [his] mental health issues” and that
“keeping [him] on probation and supervising him was a more appropriate and
effective way to address” his probation violations.
Storm has good cause for this appeal. See State v. Thompson, 951N.W.2d 1, 5 (Iowa 2020) (finding good cause for an appeal because the defendant
“challenge[d] the order revoking her deferred judgment and entering a conviction
and sentence” and “the alleged error arose after the court accepted [the
defendant’s] guilty plea”). “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).
“An abuse of discretion is only found when the sentencing court exercises its
discretion on grounds or for reasons untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” Id.In making its recommendation to the court, the State noted that Storm
refused to comply with either the terms of his probation or “his mental health needs
and recommendations from medical professionals.” It argued Storm “keeps
creating victims in our community” as a result of his “refusal to get help from his
mental health providers.” And the State referenced that Storm’s “chances on
pretrial release” and probation “just did not go well.” In deciding to revoke his
deferred judgment and impose the term of incarceration, the district court
recognized Storm’s “mental health issues” but noted “he’s not amenable to
supervision.” The court also recognized that “Storm [was] probably close to having
4
this time served or at least enough to where the Department of Correctional
Services will not hold him long, if at all.”1
The decision to revoke Storm’s deferred judgment and impose the original
sentence was an option properly before the court. See Iowa Code § 908.11(4).
And “[t]he district court has broad discretion in determining whether probation
should be continued or revoked.” State v. Covel, 925 N.W.2d 183, 188 (Iowa
2019). While Storm urges a different option would have been better and argues
the district court should have placed more weight on his mental-health issues,
neither of these arguments point to an abuse of the court’s broad discretion. See
State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 106 (Iowa 2020) (recognizing sentencing courts
are “afforded . . . a significant amount of latitude because of the ‘discretionary
nature of judging’” (citation omitted)); State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa
1983) (“Each judge must grapple with the facts and circumstances in the case
before him and arrive at the sentence he regards as right. The right of an individual
judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence
inheres in the discretionary standard.” (internal citation omitted)).
1 While Storm asked the court to “expunge this”—which the court did not do—he
also asked to be released, claiming he did not “deserve any more time in jail.”
Imposing the original sentence, which everyone anticipated would be discharged
almost immediately after Storm was taken into custody by the department of
corrections, was more in line with Storm’s request than the court’s other options.
See Iowa Code § 908.11(4) (2022); see also State v. Keutla, 798
N.W.2d 731, 733–34 (Iowa 2011) (holding that, after a probation violation, the
district court may choose one of the four options in section 908.11(4): “(1) continue
probation with or without altering the terms; (2) continue probation, but hold the
defendant in contempt and impose a jail term; (3) continue probation and place the
defendant in a violator facility; or (4) revoke probation and impose a sentence for
the original conviction”).
5
Because the district court chose an option properly before it and Storm has
not shown the court abused its discretion in reaching its decision, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.