Summary
stating the defendant's "current support network directly reflects on his chances for reform or rehabilitation, and also reflects on the court's duty to protect the public from further criminal activity"
Summary of this case from State v. CoxOpinion
No. 2-214 / 01-1286.
Filed July 3, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, NANCY TABOR, Judge.
The defendant appeals his sentences for second-degree criminal mischief and eluding. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia A. Johnston, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Michael E. Wolf, County Attorney, and Gary Strausser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by HUITINK, P.J., and VOGEL and EISENHAUER, JJ.
The defendant, Jack Jasper, appeals the sentences entered following his guilty pleas to the charges of second-degree criminal mischief, in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1 and 716.4 (1999), and eluding, in violation of section 321.279(1). Jasper maintains the district court considered improper factors in imposing concurrent, indeterminate terms of imprisonment not to exceed five years for second-degree criminal mischief and six months for eluding. We affirm.
Jasper was originally charged with first-degree criminal mischief, assault on a peace officer, interference with official acts causing injury, and eluding, following an incident in which Illinois officers pursued Jasper into Iowa. He ultimately pleaded guilty to second-degree criminal mischief and eluding. In imposing sentence, the district court, among other things, considered the fact Jasper had no support network, employment, or housing in concluding he would not be a good candidate for probation.
Where a criminal defendant challenges his sentence on the basis the district court relied on improper factors, the issue presented is simply one of the sufficiency of the record to establish the matters relied on in making the sentencing decision. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). If a court in determining sentence uses any improper consideration, resentencing of the defendant is required. Id.
At sentencing, the district court specifically considered Jasper's age, the statements of counsel, the testimony of Jasper's mother, and his prior criminal record. Additionally, the court considered the nature of the offense, Jasper's mental health problems, and that Jasper had "no support system, no job, [and] no housing." Jasper asserts the comments regarding his employment and support network were improper.
Contrary to Jasper's claim, we conclude these factors were relevant to the issue of whether he was a candidate for probation. Jasper's lack of a job, housing, or a current support network directly reflects on his chances for reform or rehabilitation, and also reflects on the court's duty to protect the public from further criminal activity. See State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999). Since Jasper argued for probation, these factors strongly weighed against his ability to succeed. Taken with the information provided in the presentence investigation report, we conclude the district court could properly find imposing a prison sentence rather than probation furthered Jasper's rehabilitation and protected the public. We therefore affirm Jasper's sentence.
AFFIRMED.