Opinion
No. 3-1005 / 03-1267.
Filed January 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Fredrick E. Breen, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon her conviction for serious assault, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2(2) (2001). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James Tompka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy N. Schott, County Attorney, and Shawn Smith, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Irene Balm appeals from the judgment and sentence entered upon her conviction for serious assault, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2(2) (2001), imposed following a guilty plea. She contends the district court abused its discretion in imposing a six-month jail sentence, all of which the court suspended, rather than granting a deferred judgment. A court's sentencing decision carries a strong presumption in its favor which will not be overcome absent an affirmative showing by the defendant that the district court abused its discretion. State v. Sumpter, 438 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Iowa 1989). No abuse of discretion will be found unless the defendant shows that such discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996).
Here, the court considered, among other factors, Balm's age (forty-three), employment status, family history, character, the nature of the offense (a sustained physical attack on a department of human services worker who was working with Balm and her children), and her prior criminal convictions (disorderly conduct, fifth-degree theft, fourth-degree theft, third-degree theft). We conclude the district court considered the appropriate factors and entered a sentence that was within the permissible range, a sentence which was arguably lenient when the relevant factors are considered. Accordingly, we conclude the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a suspended sentence instead of deferring judgment, and affirm the district court's judgment and sentence.