Opinion
No. 2-305 / 01-0691.
Filed June 19, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, ROBERT D. WILSON, Judge.
Mitchell Cartwright appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his guilty plea to extortion and terrorism in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.6 and 711.4(1) (1999). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Jaki Livingston, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
Mitchell Cartwright pled guilty to terrorism and extortion in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.6 and 711.4(1) (1999). Cartwright requested immediate sentencing and waived the preparation of the presentence investigation report (PSI). The court sentenced him to two five-year terms, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Cartwright contends his waiver of the PSI was not knowing and voluntarily.
Following the plea colloquy, the following exchange took place:
COURT: . . . You wish to be sentenced today; is that right, sir?
CARTWRIGHT: Yes.
COURT: Normally, sentencing would be out about five or six weeks, and a report would be prepared called a PSI by the Department of Corrections in the next couple of weeks. There would be a recommendation to me about what to do. By being sentenced today there is not going to be any report. Do you understand that?
CARTWRIGHT: Yes, I do.
Our standard of review is for the correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Thompson, 494 N.W.2d 239, 240 (Iowa 1992).
In support of his argument, Cartwright argues the district court failed to inform him that a presentence investigation report could contain favorable information and result in a lesser sentence than contemplated by the plea agreement. See Campbell v. State, 576 N.W.2d 362, 364 (Iowa 1998) (holding district court must "ensure that the defendant is aware the report could contain favorable information would could result in a lesser sentence"). The State alleges any error in allowing Cartwright to waive the PSI was harmless because when the PSI was prepared it contained unfavorable information regarding his past criminal history and failure to benefit from academic and residential placements. We agree and find Cartwright cannot demonstrate he suffered prejudice as a result of the district court's error. See State v. Weber, 545 N.W.2d 317, 318 (Iowa 1996) (concluding court's failure to order substance abuse evaluation was harmless in light of defendant's extensive drug history and past failures to comply with treatment). Accordingly, we affirm.
The district court issued an order nunc pro tunc requiring the completion of a presentence investigation interview prior to Cartwright's transfer to the Iowa Medical and Classification Center at Oakdale.
AFFIRMED.