Opinion
22-0567
03-06-2024
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DAVID ROBERT HIRVELA, Defendant-Appellant.
Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.
Defendant appeals the district court's sentencing decision. AFFIRMED.
Kent A. Simmons, Bettendorf, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Vogel, S.J.
SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge.
David Hirvela appeals his sentence. He argues the court abused its discretion by considering only a single sentencing factor and in failing to consider all available sentencing options.
I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings
Hirvela was diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2000. He relied on his parents for support. With the assistance from his parents, he had some stability. But as his parents aged and could not provide the same level of support for him, Hirvela's stability waned. Conflict increased between Hirvela and his parents when he stopped attending therapy and was noncompliant with medication. And Hirvela was angry with his parents for decreasing financial support.
Hirvela's declining mental health came to a head on April 16, 2021, in what a testifying psychologist described as a dissociative episode. Hirvela walked from the hotel where he was staying to his parents' home. He entered their home without permission, then he threatened and physically assaulted his parents, who are in their eighties. Hirvela was charged with burglary in the first degree, a class "B" felony; assault with intent to cause serious injury, an aggravated misdemeanor; and harassment in the first degree, an aggravated misdemeanor. The State reduced the burglary charge to second-degree burglary and dismissed the harassment charge. Hirvela waived his right to a jury trial and stipulated to a bench trial on the minutes of testimony. The court found Hirvela guilty on the amended burglary charge and the assault charge.
At sentencing, the State and the presentence investigation report recommended an imposed prison sentence. The victims, Hirvela's parents, asked for incarceration or a long term stay in a mental-health institution. Hirvela requested a suspended sentence, three years of supervised probation, and placement at a residential treatment facility. In support of his requested sentence, Hirvela presented the testimony of a psychologist who discussed the effect of his mental health on his behavior. The court sentenced Hirvela to an indeterminate ten-year period of incarceration for the burglary conviction and an indeterminate two-year period of incarceration for the assault conviction, with the sentences to run concurrently. Hirvela appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review appeals of sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016). "A district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Id. Grounds are untenable when they are not supported by substantial evidence or based on an erroneous application of law. Id. It is important to note that "[s]entencing decisions of the trial court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor." State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995).
III. Sentencing
Hirvela argues that the district court failed to "consider the sentencing option that would provide the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation;" improperly based its decision on only a single factor, the nature of the offense; and failed to consider other sentencing options. We determine that Hirvela has failed to show an abuse of discretion by the district court.
In sentencing, the court should examine "all pertinent information" and use its discretion to determine the sentence that will provide the maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others. Iowa Code § 901.5 (2021).
Hirvela argues that the district court only considered the nature of the offense in determining his sentence and that it was an abuse of discretion. A district court's "ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law." State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2014) (quoting In re Det. of Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d 690, 697 (Iowa 2013)). "When a sentence is not mandatory, the district court must exercise its discretion. . . ." State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426, 433 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996)). A sentence should fit the individual and the circumstances, and it should not rely on only a single determinative factor. Id. at 396-97. But "[t]he district court enjoys a strong presumption in its favor which will not be overcome absent an affirmative showing of abuse by the defendant." State v. Sumpter, 438 N.W.2d 6, 10 (Iowa 1989).
Hirvela focuses on a single sentence in the court's sentencing decision- "His conduct here does warrant a prison sentence because of the harsh conduct that he committed toward his parents, the fact that he was on probation." And he asserts this sentence shows the court considered only the nature of the offense. But this "look here, not there" argument ignores the remainder of the sentencing court's considerations:
I got a lot of information presented to me here today, and the question on what to do on sentencing is informed by a lot of things. It's informed by information in the presentence report. It's informed by the evidence that I heard from the Defendant's witness. And, of course, the Court takes into consideration the victim impact statements. ....
I have the Defendant's criminal history in front of me. I only take into account those matters that have resulted in a conviction. I don't take into account any matters that were dismissed or otherwise unadjudicated.
....
He does have some other criminal conduct in his history that includes disorderly conduct. I note some of these are old. There is a simple misdemeanor regarding weapons, a really old domestic assault. Some of those older items have less weight with me, but, obviously, they're informative nonetheless.
I don't know who said it in here, but one of the counsel- maybe both-did accurately describe the fact that here in the state of Iowa we don't have what we'd all like to have as far as mental health services and facilities and places to sort of deal with folks who need more than, you know, outpatient treatment and less than prison.
The defense's entire argument is that the Defendant falls in that category. He certainly needs treatment, but I don't find that he falls in that category specifically. His conduct here does warrant a prison sentence because of the harsh conduct that he committed toward his parents, the fact that he was on probation. And taking everything the doctor said here in court, it does mitigate somewhat the conduct, but it certainly doesn't justify it. It's not a defense to the conduct itself. I don't believe that the Defendant didn't know right from wrong. I don't believe that there was any legitimate mental health, mental disorder defense to the offenses. I don't believe that warrants less of a sentence than prison.
The court outlined factors other than the nature of the offense that informed its decision, including the presentence investigation report, the victim impact statements, and the testimony of Hirvela's witness. And while the court did not speak at length on every factor, it is unnecessary to do so. "While the rule requires a statement of reasons on the record, a 'terse and succinct' statement may be sufficient, 'so long as the brevity of the court's statement does not prevent review of the exercise of the trial court's sentencing discretion.'" State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989)). In the court's written sentencing order, the court reiterated the reasons for the court's sentencing decision:
In determining this sentence, the Court has considered the court file, including the entirety of the presentence investigation report, the nature and circumstances of the offenses, the history and characteristics of Defendant, including Defendant's age and prior confirmed criminal record, not including unadjudicated or dismissed allegations; portions of the victim impact statements; the testimony provided; the recommendation set out in the presentence investigation report. The Court finds the sentence imposed will offer Defendant the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation balanced against the need to protect the community.
A court's written order can be relied on to show consideration of other factors in sentencing. See State v. Chretien, No. 16-1968, 2017 WL 3283321, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2017).
On this record, we determine Hirvela has failed to show an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2024).