IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0172
Filed July 30, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHAYLA NICOLE DENTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J.
Harris, Judge.
Defendant appeals the sentence imposed following her plea to drug-
related offenses. AFFIRMED.
Luke D. Guthrie of Roberts, Stevens, Prendergast & Guthrie, P.L.L.C.,
Waterloo, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Brad Walz, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Defendant Shayla Denton pleaded guilty pursuant to North Carolina v.
Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to the following: possession of a controlled
substance, marijuana, with intent to distribute, within 1000 feet of a public school,
in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(d) and 124.401A (2013); and
failure to possess a tax stamp, in violation of section 453B.12. The matter came
on for a sentencing hearing on February 16, 2014. The State recommended a
suspended sentence, and the defendant requested a deferred judgment. The
district court sentenced Denton to concurrent terms of incarceration for each
count, suspended the sentences, and placed Denton under the supervision of the
Department of Correctional Services. On appeal, Denton challenges her
sentence, arguing the district court considered an impermissible factor in not
granting her a deferred judgment.
The decision to grant a deferred judgment to an eligible defendant rests
within the sound discretion of the sentencing court. See Iowa Code § 907.3
(providing the district court “may” grant a deferred judgment); State v. Thomas,
547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996) (“When a sentence is not mandatory, the
district court must exercise its discretion in determining what sentence to
impose.”). Here, the sentence imposed was allowed by statute, and the decision
to impose a sentence within statutory limits is “cloaked with a strong presumption
in its favor.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). The sentence
will not be upset on appeal “unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial
court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Grandberry,
3
619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). “An abuse of discretion is found only when
the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225.
Denton contends the court considered an impermissible factor in
determining her sentence. Specifically, she contends the court considered the
conduct of Denton’s intermittent boyfriend and father of her children—who,
according to Denton—was the person distributing drugs from Denton’s home
without her knowledge. The argument is without merit. At the sentencing
hearing, it is clear the court made a sentencing determination based on its
conclusion that Denton never accepted responsibility for her conduct. The
sentencing court found it implausible Denton was not participating in and did not
know that Denton’s on-again/off-again, live-in-boyfriend was distributing
marijuana from Denton’s home. The police recovered twenty-two bricks of
marijuana from the home, $2000 in cash, guns, and ammunition. The smell of
marijuana permeated the house. Also, the district court concluded Denton was
receiving income from the distribution of marijuana because her expenses far
exceeded the income she earned from part-time employment. Thus it was her
conduct—not her boyfriend’s conduct—and her failure to accept responsibility for
her conduct that influenced the district court. The district court’s consideration of
the defendant’s lack of remorse and failure to accept responsibility for her
conduct was entirely appropriate. See State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83, 89 (Iowa
2005) (holding that sentencing court may consider lack of remorse as a
sentencing factor following Alford plea).
4
Having found no error, we affirm the sentence of the district court.
AFFIRMED.