Opinion
No. 3-782 / 03-0151
Filed October 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forClinton County, C. H. Pelton, Judge.
Joyce Barten appeals from the sentences imposed by the district court following her guilty pleas to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.
DennisBjorklund of Bjorklund Law Firm, L.L.C., Coralville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Wolf, County Attorney, and Gary Strausser, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee-State.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
Joyce Yvonne Barten appeals from the sentences imposed following her guilty pleas to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c)(6) and 124.401(5) (2001). She claims the district court erred in ordering her to serve prison time. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.
On April 30, 2002, the defendant, her husband, and another individual were arrested after a police investigation. On May 9, 2002, the State filed a trial information charging Barten with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine precursors, and possession of methamphetamine. On December 11, 2002, Barten entered a plea of guilty to the lesser-included offense of conspiracy to manufacture five grams or less of methamphetamine (count one), a class C felony. At her sentencing hearing, the defendant also pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine (count three), a serious misdemeanor. The State then dismissed count two of the trial information.
After hearing the sentencing recommendations of counsel, the district court imposed a term not to exceed ten years and a fine of $1000 on count one and a term of one year on count three, to be served concurrently. The court waived the one-third mandatory minimum sentence on the conspiracy charge. Barten appealed.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Because the challenged sentence does not fall outside the statutory limits, we review the court's sentencing order for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). The trial court's sentencing decisions "are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor." State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 759 (Iowa 1998).
Barten claims the district court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of incarceration because the circumstances surrounding her criminal charges were not "egregious." The record reveals the district court considered the information and recommendation provided in the presentence report, as well as the recommendations of counsel. The court selected its sentence after considering the seriousness of the offense, Barten's age and criminal history, her refusal to accept responsibility for her actions, and her past involvement with substance abuse and other substance abusers. The court's written judgment entry states that its sentence "provides for punishment by separation from the community, both specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation, if the defendant will take advantage of what is offered in the institution."
Our task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. See State v. Gartin 271 N.W.2d 902, 910 (Iowa 1978). In this case, the district court's decision was within statutory limits, and was neither unreasonable nor based on untenable grounds. Because the district court's decision to incarcerate was well within its discretion, we will not disturb the sentences imposed on Barten by the district court. We affirm.