Opinion
No. 3-789 / 03-0659
Filed November 17, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D. Huppert (Guilty Plea) and Eliza J. Ovrom (Sentencing), Judges.
John Woolsey, III, appeals the sentence entered upon his convictions for second-degree arson and third-degree burglary. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and James Tomka, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and George Karnes and James Ward, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Hecht, and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
John Woolsey pleaded guilty to second-degree arson, in violation of Iowa Code sections 712.1 and 712.3 (2003), and third-degree burglary, in violation of section 713.6A. The court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years on the arson charge and a period not to exceed five years on the burglary charge. It ordered that the sentences be run concurrently. Woolsey appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to imprisonment, rather than suspending his sentence and placing him on probation.
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of errors at law. State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1998). We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Id.
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Woolsey. Prior to sentencing, Woolsey's father, one of the victims of the crime, detailed the enormous loss the family suffered, both financially and emotionally. Although the presentence investigation report recommended a suspended sentence with probation, the court determined other factors weighed in favor of incarceration. In support of its sentencing decision, the court considered such appropriate factors as the seriousness of the offenses, the amount of damage caused, the fact the crime was committed against a family member, and the broken trust it caused. Further, the court noted its belief that to grant probation would lessen the seriousness of the offense and would not provide adequate protection of the public. Our review persuades us the court's decision was not exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. See State v. Buck, 275 N.W.2d 194, 195 (Iowa 1979). We therefore affirm.