State of Iowa v. Miguel Antonio Ruiz, Jr. ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-0241
Filed April 26, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MIGUEL ANTONIO RUIZ, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.
Miguel Ruiz appeals the sentences imposed upon his criminal convictions.
AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., Badding, J., and Mullins, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2023).
2
MULLINS, Senior Judge.
Miguel Ruiz appeals the sentences imposed upon his convictions, following
guilty pleas,1 for obstructing prosecution and accessory after the fact. He argues
the sentencing court “abused its discretion by considering aggravating factors that
were not borne out by the record at [his] sentencing.”
Ruiz was charged by trial information with obstruction of prosecution,
accessory after the fact, and two counts of conspiracy. In time, Ruiz filed a written
guilty plea, which noted the terms of the plea agreement included concurrent
sentences on counts one and two and dismissal of the conspiracy charges. Ruiz
agreed to the accuracy of the minutes of evidence to establish factual bases for
his plea to counts one and two, and he admitted he did “obstruct prosecution by
aiding + abetting the destruction of potential evidence + assisted an individual
charged w/ a felony by transporting out of area.” The court accepted Ruiz’s pleas
and set the matter for sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the State recommended concurrent prison
sentences, highlighting its position that Ruiz “hasn’t accepted appropriate
accountability for his actions.” Specifically, the State explained Ruiz “never came
forward to offer assistance or truth to tell what happened in this case,” which
resulted in the victim’s family having “to wait so long in order to find out the truth
about what happened” to the victim “and how he died.” The defense
recommended imposition of suspended sentences, highlighting Ruiz’s limited
1 The State agrees Ruiz has good cause to appeal following his guilty pleas. See
Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 89, 104
(Iowa 2021).
3
criminal history, employment, and “truthful retelling of what occurred” to
investigators.2
Following the reading of a victim impact statement, the court sentenced
Ruiz to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed two years. The court
explained:
In determining this sentence, I’ve considered the entirety of
the information before me in this case, which includes the nature and
circumstances of these offenses and the history and characteristics
of the Defendant as I know them, which include just one prior criminal
conviction out of the state of Illinois. It was a firearm-related offense,
and this is a firearm-related incident we’re talking about here.
And I agree with the State’s characterization that Mr. Ruiz
could have done a lot, a lot earlier, to ameliorate some suffering of
the families and even another one of the defendants in this action.
This case is different than [another codefendant’s] because
[the codefendant] came forward earlier, pled earlier, and she got the
additional benefit for doing that. The same does not apply, in my
mind, to Mr. Ruiz.
I did consider the recommendation of both counsel in this
case. I’ve considered Mr. Ruiz’s right to not say anything in this case.
I did not hold it against him in any way. And I also considered the
victim impact statement we heard here today.
But I do find that this sentence offers the Defendant the
maximum opportunity for rehabilitation, balanced against the interest
in protecting the community; and it does justice, given the facts and
circumstances of the charges in this case.
(Emphasis added.)
Focusing on the emphasized language in the court’s statement above, Ruiz
argues on appeal that court’s belief that he “was not cooperative and forthcoming
with law enforcement regarding his involvement” is not supported by the record
and was therefore an improper sentencing factor.
2 Ruiz declined his opportunity for allocution.
4
We review sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion, which occurs
when the district court relies on an impermissible sentencing factor. State v. West
Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355 (Iowa 2022). A consideration is out of bounds for
sentencing purposes “unless the defendant admits them or facts are presented to
prove them.” State v. Fetner, 959 N.W.2d 129, 135 (Iowa 2021).
The minutes of evidence disclose the following pertinent facts. An argument
at a house party in Cedar Rapids in the early morning hours of June 18, 2020
resulted in the shooting death of Malik Sheets. Sheets was allegedly shot by either
M.J. or C.E.,3 one of the two people Ruiz was at the party with. The trio fled from
the party after the shooting. Later that morning, they arrived at Sharvell Davis’s
apartment in North Liberty, disposed of their clothes in a garbage bag, and gave
Davis directions on what to do with the bag. The trio then fled to Illinois.
The next day—June 19—Ruiz, M.J., and C.E. were taken into custody by
police in Illinois. When interviewed by Cedar Rapids law enforcement that same
day, all three denied being involved in the shooting. Ruiz reported he “didn’t really
know what happened” at the party; left the party with M.J., C.E., and another
person after things “erupted”; went to an apartment in North Liberty, then went to
Chicago. M.J. reported to police that changing his clothes was Ruiz’s idea. C.E.
reported they went to North Liberty to change clothes “then went to Illinois to avoid
getting into trouble.”
Law enforcement continued investigating the matter through September.
While outside the minutes of evidence, the record shows a criminal complaint was
3 These individuals were apparently juveniles at the time.
5
filed and a warrant issued for Ruiz’s arrest on September 18. He was arrested on
November 22. As noted, Ruiz admitted in his guilty plea that he assisted in
destroying evidence to obstruct prosecution and transported another out of the
area as an accessory after the fact.
The record shows Ruiz was involved in the shooting and—with the likely
intent to prevent apprehension—destroyed evidence, aided the known
perpetrators involved in fleeing the state, and lied to law enforcement about it all.
The truth was only uncovered by further investigation by law enforcement. All of
these facts are ingredients to the factual bases supporting Ruiz’s pleas, and they
are drawn from permissible sources to establish a factual basis. See State v.
Finney, 834 N.W.2d 46, 62 (Iowa 2013) (noting “the entire record before the district
court may be examined” in determining a factual basis). So Ruiz’s claim that the
court’s belief that he “was not cooperative and forthcoming with law enforcement
regarding his involvement” was an improper factor as unsupported by the record
rings hollow. The facts before the court specifically show he was not cooperative
and forthcoming with law enforcement about his involvement. To the extent the
court considered this as a factor in its sentencing decision, it was fair game.
Finding the court did not abuse its discretion by relying on an improper
sentencing factor, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.