IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1679
Filed June 25, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JONATHAN LINDSEY WORKMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, DeDra L.
Schroeder, Judge.
Johnathan Lindsey Workman appeals his conviction and sentence for
child stealing. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Ney, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, Carlyle D. Dalen, County Attorney, and Rachel Ginby,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
Johnathan Lindsey Workman appeals his conviction and sentence for
child stealing. Workman claims the district court relied on impermissible factors
in imposing his sentence. We find Workman has failed to show the district court
relied upon charges that were dismissed as part of the plea agreement in
imposing his sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Johnathan Workman pled guilty to one count of child stealing, in violation
of Iowa Code section 710.5 (2013), after he attempted to leave a bar with a
person’s small child. Workman was also charged with two counts of assault
while participating in a felony, in violation of section 708.3. The assault counts
were dropped as a part of a plea agreement. Workman entered an Alford plea
and was sentenced to a term not to exceed ten years in prison.
During the sentencing hearing, the district court made the following
statement:
The laws of Iowa require that a court impose a sentence that best
provides for a person’s rehabilitation, protects our community, and
deters others from committing this type of offense. In trying to
determine what kind of sentence is appropriate, I look at everything
I learn about you through the presentence investigation report, I
look at everything I learn about this case through the file, I consider
the things that were said on your behalf today by Ms. Turner, I’ve
considered your age, I’ve looked at your education, I’ve also looked
at your lengthy criminal history, I’ve looked at your lengthy battle
with substance abuse issues and the troubles that you’ve had on
supervision in the past. Based on everything that I’ve learned
about you, and the factors I’ve considered, I’m going to order you to
serve an indeterminate sentence of up to ten years in the Iowa
State Prison System. I’m not going to suspend that sentence.
3
Workman claims the district court’s reference to “everything I learn[ed] about this
case through the file” is a clear indication the district court relied upon the other,
unproven, charges in determining his sentence.
II. Standard of Review
Our review of the legality of the sentence is for correction of errors at law.
State v. Keutla, 798 N.W.2d 731, 732 (Iowa 2011).
III. Discussion
Workman raises a single issue on appeal. Did the district court
impermissibly rely on unproven charges in imposing his sentence? We find it did
not.
The district court is not permitted to consider unproven or unprosecuted
charges when sentencing a defendant unless the facts clearly establish the
offense was committed or the defendant admits the facts of the offense. State v.
Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001). The defendant must make an affirmative
showing that the district court relied upon improper evidence of unproven
charges. State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998). A strong
presumption works in favor of the sentencing options exercised by the district
court. State v. Peters, 525 N.W.2d 854, 859 (Iowa 1994).
In Jose, our supreme court rejected a similar claim when the district court
stated it was relying on “your additional crimes.” 636 N.W.2d at 41. The
statement fell short of showing a reliance on unproven crimes and was
interpreted as relying only upon prior convictions. Id. at 41–42. In reaching its
decision, the Jose court summarized instances where an affirmative showing
4
was made by the defendant. Id. at 42–43. In each case, the district court had
expressly referred to the unproven charges or the “factual circumstances” of the
charges. Id. We find no such reliance here. The district court referred to
“everything in the file”, and while that could include the charges that were
eventually dismissed, we find no affirmative showing the district court was
specifically relying on unproven charges. Rather, the court’s reference to the file
is part of a summarization of specific pieces of evidence relied upon, many of
which would be contained in the file. Considering the context of the remarks, we
find Workman has failed to make the necessary showing.
AFFIRMED.