From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Nov 23, 2016
889 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

Summary

holding mere disagreement with sentencing decision is insufficient to establish the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence

Summary of this case from State v. Sweat

Opinion

No. 16–0700.

11-23-2016

STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Brian Nathaniel SMITH, Defendant–Appellant.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.


DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Nov 23, 2016
889 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

holding mere disagreement with sentencing decision is insufficient to establish the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence

Summary of this case from State v. Sweat
Case details for

State v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Brian Nathaniel SMITH…

Court:Court of Appeals of Iowa.

Date published: Nov 23, 2016

Citations

889 N.W.2d 701 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)

Citing Cases

State v. Sweat

We thus affirm Sweat's sentences. See, e.g., State v. Smith, No. 16-0700, 2016 WL 6902854, at *1 (Iowa Ct.…