Opinion
No. 3-903 / 03-0643.
Filed December 10, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Patrick J. Madden, Judge.
Deanna Springer appeals from the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to forgery in violation of Iowa Code section 715A.1 and 715A.2(2)(a)(3) (Supp. 2001). AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Gary Allison, County Attorney, and Kerry Snyder, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Mahan and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Deanna Springer appeals from the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to forgery in violation of Iowa Code section 715A.1 and 715A.2(2)(a)(3) (Supp. 2001). Springer contends the court abused its sentencing discretion by considering an improper sentencing factor. We affirm.
We review a district court's sentencing decision either for abuse of discretion or for a defect in sentencing procedure, such as the district court's consideration of impermissible sentencing factors. State v. Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515, 516 (Iowa 1998). A court's consideration of the timing of parole is an impermissible sentencing factor. State v. Remmers, 259 N.W.2d 779, 785 (Iowa 1977). Under Iowa's correctional scheme, it is the parole board's prerogative to determine the minimum length of a defendant's sentence. Id. Where improper factors are considered, a sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for resentencing. State v. Sinclair, 582 N.W.2d 762, 765 (Iowa 1998).
At sentencing the State argued Springer should receive an indeterminate five-year prison term for the following reasons: (1) the sentence is consistent with the presentence investigation recommendation; (2) her prior criminal record is replete with similar offenses; (3) she is deceptive and manipulative, which is consistent with the type of crimes committed; and (4) she has several pending probation violations. Springer argued she should be imprisoned for a term of six months and placed in a residential facility. The district court sentenced Springer to an indeterminate five-year prison term. In rejecting Springer's recommendation the district court noted her criminal history, her need for mental health treatment and evaluation, and the need to protect the public. The court then stated: "there's no reason you should have to spend a full five years in prison. It should be quite a bit less than that if you follow the rules. And I'm sure Ms. Dalton could tell you what those five-year sentences are running right now, but it's not, quite frankly, very long." It is these remarks that Springer argues violated Remmers.
In Remmers, 259 N.W.2d at 785, our supreme court held it is impermissible for a sentencing court to deliberately lengthen a sentence in an effort to interfere with parole practices. The State argues, and we agree, that parole practices were not a factor in the court's selection of Springer's sentence. The district court clearly stated its reasons on the record for sentencing Springer to an indeterminate five-year prison term rather than six months of imprisonment and placement in a residential facility. The factors considered by the court were all permissible sentencing factors. The statement made by the court that Springer would likely serve less than five years cannot be construed to mean the court was increasing Springer's sentence in an attempt to interfere with parole practices. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The court simply informed Springer as required by Iowa Code section 901.5(9) that she may be released on parole prior to the expiration of the maximum period of incarceration. For these reasons we find the district court did not abuse its discretion and, thus, we affirm the decision of the district court.