State of Iowa v. Tyson James Ruth ( 2017 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1867
Filed May 3, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TYSON JAMES RUTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Gregory A. Hulse,
Judge.
Tyson James Ruth appeals his convictions for burglary, theft, and criminal
trespass. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee State.
Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
On February 11, 2016, a burglary was reported in Adel. Police responded
to the scene and contacted the owner of the property, Adam Kirkpatrick. On
February 14, Kirkpatrick noticed a red van that had been connected with the
earlier burglary. Joey Godwin and Tyson Ruth were both in the van, and when
confronted by Kirkpatrick, an altercation started. Police officers arrived at the
scene, and Godwin and Ruth were arrested. A search of the van revealed the
stolen property from the February 11 burglary.
Ruth pled guilty to attempted burglary in the third degree, in violation of
Iowa Code section 713.6B(1) (2016); theft in the fourth degree, in violation of
Iowa Code sections 714.1(4), 714.2(4), and 703.1; and criminal trespass, in
violation of Iowa Code sections 716.7 and 716.8(2). Ruth entered a written guilty
plea to each charge, specifically agreeing each sentence should run
consecutively. On September 30, Ruth was sentenced in accordance with the
parties’ plea agreements. Ruth claims the district court abused its discretion by
failing to provide sufficient reasons in the record for the sentences imposed.
Review of a sentence imposed in criminal cases is for correction of errors
at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. However, the district court will not be reversed
without a showing the court abused its discretion. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
Our supreme court has held a sentence imposed in accordance with the
parties’ plea agreement is “not a product of the exercise of the trial court’s
discretion.” State v. Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728, 729 (Iowa 1983). If a district court
is simply giving effect to the parties’ plea agreements, “stating reasons for
3
imposition of sentence would serve no useful purpose, and any failure to [state
the reasons for imposition is] harmless.” State v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755, 756
(Iowa 1995). The record before us clearly shows the district court imposed
sentences that simply gave effect to the plea agreements. Therefore, we find the
trial court did not abuse its discretion. Pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a),
(c), and (e), we affirm.
AFFIRMED.