Opinion
No. 5-176 / 04-1213
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Fredrick E. Breen, Judge.
Jeremy Tyrell Gully appeals his prison sentence for possession of cocaine, second offense. AFFIRMED.
James Fitzgerald, Fort Dodge, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Timothy N. Schott, County Attorney, and Jonathon Beaty, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Jeremy Tyrell Gully appeals his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine as a second offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2003). Because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Gully to prison, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
On June 23, 2004, the district court accepted Gully's plea of guilty to possession of cocaine, second offense. At his sentencing hearing, Gully argued that he should not be sentenced to prison but instead should be placed on probation so that he may enter a drug treatment program. In support of this proposition, Gully offered the testimony of Karen Shepherd, his mother-in-law and the Director of Greater Omaha Community Action. After hearing Gully's evidence and arguments, and with no recommendation from the State, the district court sentenced Gully to prison. Gully appeals.
II. Standard of Review
A sentence imposed in a criminal case is reviewed for correction of errors at law and will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
An abuse of discretion exists when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999). Gully has the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion sufficient to overcome the strong presumption in favor of the validity of the district court's sentence. See State v. Sumpter, 438 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Iowa 1989).
III. Discussion
The district court's primary consideration in sentencing Gully to prison was determining what would best rehabilitate him and what would best protect the community as evidenced by the following statement:
[T]he Court is considering how best to help your rehabilitation and to protect other people in the society from assaultive and other violent behavior and the detriment that comes about by having more drug guys out on the street. . . .
These factors are tenable as they are the factors that should be considered in crafting a sentence. See Iowa Code § 901.5 (2003); State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 10 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995) ("A sentence is imposed . . . defendant the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation and to protect the community.").