Opinion
No. 3-055 / 02-1088.
Filed February 28, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Thomas R. Hronek, District Associate Judge.
Amanda Becker appeals from the sentence imposed as a result of her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Karen Doland, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and James Scheetz, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Amanda Becker appeals from the sentence imposed as a result of her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2001). We affirm.
Becker was charged with possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) based on allegations that she possessed methamphetamine in March of 2002. After Becker pled guilty, the court sentenced her to sixty days in the county jail over the State's recommendation that the court defer judgment and place her on probation.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). 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). "A sentence will not be upset on appellate review unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure, such as trial court consideration of impermissible factors." Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d at 401 (citation omitted).
Becker contends the trial court impermissibly considered an unproved allegation that she manufactured methamphetamine in reaching its sentencing decision. We disagree. Relevant portions of the trial court's sentencing decision state:
Ms. Becker has pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine and the State of Iowa recommends that the Court defer judgment based primarily on the conclusion by the State of Iowa that Ms. Becker was, I guess, addicted to methamphetamine and wasn't an active participant in something that anybody with any common sense would have recognized as a situation that not only placed them at risk but also posed a substantial risk to other members of the community and involved activities in the home that were known to Ms. Becker and went well beyond that — the mere possession of methamphetamine. That's not to be — conclude that she was manufacturing it because the record doesn't indicate that and the State decided not to proceed with that after the filing of the complaint. But anyone with an ounce of common sense would recognize what was going on in that home particularly when, as Ms. Becker has admitted, she herself was in possession of a controlled substance at that residence.
The situation she found herself in here though, and was apparently willing to live with, was one that the community cannot in any way condone this. And it was a situation that Ms. Becker knew involved the manufacture of controlled substances that have visited unbelievable tragedies, not only on Ms. Becker but for others as well; in addition to that, the mere manufacture of this substance in a residential area in property that didn't belong to Ms. Becker or apparently anyone else who lived there, demonstrates an apparent willingness to pose a threat to the safety and health of other people who were completely innocent. Obviously, a total lack of respect for the owner of the property, and is behavior that in no way can be excused.
. . . .
Again the seriousness of this offense of possession of methamphetamine, balanced against the fact that Ms. Becker as a young person with no previous criminal history, the Court concludes that a sixty-day period of incarceration in the county jail is an appropriate disposition in this matter.
The trial court acknowledged that methamphetamine was being manufactured where Becker resided. However, the court clearly states that the record does not indicate she was involved in the manufacturing process. Furthermore, the fact manufacturing was taking place in the residence is undisputed and was merely a consideration of other criminal activity bearing on the sentence to be imposed. State v. Longo, 608 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 2000). We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's sentencing decision.
Lastly, we reject the State's claim that Becker failed to preserve error on this issue. See Cooley, 587 N.W.2d at 754.