Opinion
No. 4-814 / 04-0909
Filed December 22, 2004
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James M. Drew, Judge, and Kim M. Riley, District Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James G. Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and James Scheetz, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
The defendant appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the district court. We affirm.
Background Facts and Proceedings.
Rafael Martinez, Jr. entered guilty pleas to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(c)(6), 124.413, and 901.10(1) (2003); failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of sections 453B.3, 453B.1(3)(a), 453B.1(10), and 453B.12; unlawful gathering, in violation of section 124.407; and first-degree harassment, in violation of sections 708.7(1)(a)(1) and 708.7(2). In case FECR059476 he was sentenced to a term not to exceed ten years with a one-third mandatory minimum on the possession with intent conviction. He was also sentenced to terms not to exceed five years on both the drug tax stamp and unlawful gathering convictions. In case AGCR059930 he was sentenced to serve a term not to exceed two years on the first-degree harassment charge. The sentences in FECR059476 were ordered to be served concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentence in AGCR059930. Martinez appeals.
Standard of Review.
We review the district court's sentence for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. 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. State v. Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515, 516 (Iowa 1998). Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor, and an abuse of discretion will not be found unless the defendant shows such discretion was exercised for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. The Merits.
Martinez alleges the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison. He specifically claims the sentence was unreasonable because he "is as remorseful for his actions as a person can be." While that is all well and good, a careful review of the record fails to uncover an abuse of discretion at either sentencing proceeding. In addition to the facts and circumstances involved in the instant convictions, we note that Martinez was also previously convicted of operating while intoxicated, child endangerment, serious assault, third-degree theft, and driving while barred. The sentences handed down by the judges in this case were reasonable and free from any abuse of discretion.