Opinion
No. 2-1048 / 02-1028
Filed January 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Steven J. Oeth, District Associate Judge.
Laura Lin appeals the sentence imposed by the district court on her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2002). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Jim Robbins, County Attorney, and Sarah Livingston, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Laura Lin appeals the sentence imposed by the district court on her guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5) (2002). We affirm.
On March 5, 2002, Lin was charged by trial information with possession of methamphetamine. She entered into a plea agreement whereby she pled guilty to said charge and the State agreed to recommend one year in jail with all but two days suspended. At the sentencing hearing, the State made the agreed recommendation while Lin requested complete suspension. The State also introduced evidence of Lin's criminal record. This was Lin's fourth drug-related conviction. The district court sentenced Lin to one year in jail with all but ten days suspended and probation. Lin appeals.
Because the challenged sentence does not fall outside the statutory limits, we review the court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). An abuse of discretion is found only if the court's discretion has been exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999). A sentence will be reversed if the court fails to exercise its sentencing discretion, or considers an improper factor in imposing sentence. State v. Carrillo, 597 N.W.2d 497, 501 (Iowa 1999).
Lin contends the district court abused its discretion by sentencing her to ten days in jail rather than the two days recommended by the State. The district court in sentencing Lin stated:
I do want to send a message to you that this kind of activity can't be tolerated and there are significant sanctions for that, so I am going to impose some county jail time, but I am also going to put you on probation because I think that you have established before that when you're having some supervision, you can lead a law abiding life. So a recommendation consistent with what the parties have recommended or the recommendation that the parties have made here seems appropriate. And I think it does provide for your rehabilitation and for the protection of the community.
Lin argues the court's statement "so a recommendation consistent with what the parties have recommended or the recommendation that the parties have made here seems appropriate" indicates the court agreed to impose a two-day jail sentence. We disagree. First of all, the district court was not bound by the terms of the State's recommendation. See Iowa R.Crim.P. 2.10(2). Secondly, we do not read the court's statement so narrowly. A ten-day sentence for a repeat offender is generally consistent with the recommendations made by the parties. The ten-day sentence imposed by the court was within statutory limits. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lin to one year in jail with all but ten days suspended and probation. We also find no merit in Lin's other argument that the State did not tailor its reasons for selecting the particular sentence to the offense charged and Lin's background. After a careful review of the record, we believe the district court's statement of its reasons for imposing the challenged sentence was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 2.23(3)( d).