Opinion
No. 2-1037 / 02-0743
Filed February 12, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Michael Mullins, Judge.
Kevin Phillips appeals from the sentence imposed as a result of his guilty plea to transporting or exercising dominion and control over firearms as a felon and possession of offensive weapons. AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey Smith, Oskaloosa, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kristin Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles Stream, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Hecht, JJ.
Kevin Phillips appeals from the sentence imposed as a result of his guilty plea to transporting or exercising dominion and control over firearms as a felon in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26 (2001) and possession of offensive weapons in violation of section 724.3.
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4; State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). Because the challenged sentence does not fall outside the statutory limits, we review the court's sentencing order for an abuse of discretion. State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 1998). "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, such as trial court consideration of impermissible factors." Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d at 401 (citation omitted).
Phillips claims the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of incarceration rather than placing him on probation. Our review of the record reveals that the court sentenced Phillips in accordance with the plea agreement he reached with the county attorney's office and in accordance with statutory limits. The trial court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728, 729 (Iowa 1983).
Phillips also claims the trial court considered other dismissed charges in deciding his sentence. Because the record does not reveal the trial court considered other dismissed charges, Phillips's argument has no merit. We affirm.