IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1145
Filed May 14, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ERIC WILLIAM WEEKS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Nancy S. Tabor
(plea) and Mark R. Lawson (sentencing), Judges.
Eric Weeks appeals his sentence for solicitation to commit willful injury, a
non-forcible felony. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael H. Walton, County Attorney, and Melissa Zaehringer, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Mullins, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no
part.
2
VOGEL, P.J.
Eric Weeks appeals his sentence for solicitation to commit willful injury, a
non-forcible felony. Weeks claims the district court’s reasoning was based on
the sentences imposed in his other criminal cases rather than this case, and the
imposition of the consecutive five-year sentence was strictly punitive. Because
we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing this
sentence and requiring it to run consecutively to Weeks’s other terms of
incarceration, we affirm.
Weeks pled guilty to solicitation to commit willful injury, a non-forcible
felony, in violation of Iowa Code sections 705.1 and 708.4(2) (2013), as a result
of his attempt to hire one or more individuals to murder his family so he could
avoid prosecution for the sexual abuse of his children. On June 28, 2013, the
district court held a sentencing hearing in which it imposed sentences relating to
the solicitation count as well as the guilty convictions arising from the trial for
sexual abuse. The district court sentenced Weeks to a term not to exceed five
years, to be served consecutively to the counts arising from the other cases.
Weeks appeals.
We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Evans, 672 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003). An abuse of discretion is only found
when the court exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an
extent clearly unreasonable. Id. “Sentencing decisions are cloaked with a strong
presumption in their favor. A sentence will not be upset on appellate review
unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect
3
in the sentencing procedure, such as trial court consideration of impermissible
factors.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000).
In sentencing Weeks, the district court stated:
Well, Mr. Weeks, it’s my duty under the law to determine
what rehabilitative plan is appropriate for you, and also to consider
the need of the public for protection. I have the benefit of having
presided over your trial on Counts 1 through 6 in Number 344614.
I’ve also reviewed the presentence investigation. I’ve considered
the information therein, together with the statements of the
prosecutor, your attorney, and your statements here today.
This case involved your systematic abuse of your daughter
over a substantial period of time beginning at age 10. The abuse
was pervasive and it was so commonplace that it became ingrained
in the fabric of your family. This was not a situation where one
night in a hotel room got out of hand, as you stated to some of your
friends at the time of your arrest. You used your influence as a
father, together with the prospect of financial or other rewards, to
obtain sexual gratification from your child. The Court considers the
length of time over which the abuse occurred, and the
circumstances surrounding the abuse, as a substantial factor in
fashioning an appropriate sentence.
The Court also considers the fact that your abuse involved
more than one minor victim. You became involved in a sexual
relationship with another minor daughter from whom your parental
rights were apparently terminated, and you cultivated a sexual
relationship with her within weeks of making contact with her. You
also solicited an unrelated child to engage in sex acts. This
demonstrates to the Court that you pose a risk to minors outside of
members of your immediate family. The Court believes you are a
dangerous sexual predator who preys upon minors, particularly
minors over whom you have influence. Therefore, community
protection, and particularly the protection of minors you would come
into contact with, is also a significant factor in the Court’s
sentencing decision.
The Court also considers the attempt you made to solicit
harm to your family in an effort to impede this criminal prosecution.
Other reasons for the Court’s sentence include your age,
your criminal history, which the Court does note was prior to 2003,
so it’s some time ago, your need for substantial and prolonged
treatment for your sexual addiction, the harm you have caused to
your wife and your child, and the recommendation of the PSI that
includes the other victims in your case.
The sentence on the two Class B felonies is mandatory. The
Court believes that you must be incarcerated for a sufficient period
4
of time until you no longer pose a threat to minors in the
community.
....
In FECR 351624, pursuant to your plea of guilty under Count
4 of the Trial Information to the offense of Solicitation to Commit a
Non-forcible Felony in violation of Iowa Code Section 705.1, and as
provided by Sections 902.3 and 902.9 of the Iowa Criminal Code, it
is the judgment and sentence of the Court that you be, and are
hereby, committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa
Department of Corrections for a period not to exceed five years,
and that you pay a fine of $750. You will receive credit on your
sentence for time spent in the Scott County Jail. The fine is
suspended.
The sentences under Count 1 and 2 in FECR 344614 are to
be served concurrently. The sentence—sentences under Counts 3
and 4 in Case Number 344614 are to be served concurrently with
each other, but consecutive to Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6. The
sentences in Counts 5 and 6 in FECR 344614 are to be served
concurrently with each other, but consecutive to the sentences in
Counts 1 and 2, to be served together, and 3 and 4, to be served
together. The sentence in FECR 351624 shall be served
consecutively to all sentences in Case Number 344614.
The Court’s reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, in
addition to the reasons cited previously, is the longstanding and
persistent nature of the sexual abuse, and the fact that there were
multiple minor victims of your abuse.
The Court orders the sentence for the Solicitation offense to
be served consecutively, as this not only represented an attempt to
threaten and intimidate your family, but also to strike a blow at the
legal system by attempting to prevent the Court from having access
to their testimony.
....
The Court orders the Solicitation offense to be served
consecutively for the reasons stated above. The Court also
considers the need to protect the community from further offenses
by this defendant. The Court orders that the consecutive
sentencing on Counts 1 and 2, 3 and 4, and 5 and 6 most
appropriately reflect your conduct towards this young victim and the
number of years and the number of events which occurred during
that period of time.
(Emphasis added.)
The district court adequately explained its reasoning when ordering the
sentence for the solicitation to commit willful injury count to run consecutively to
5
the terms of imprisonment imposed in the other cases. Furthermore, it is not, as
Weeks characterizes the sentence, a purely punitive measure, considering the
court’s understandable desire to protect the community and his family from
Weeks. Consequently, we find no abuse of discretion, and affirm pursuant to
Iowa Rule of Court 21.26(1)(a), (d), and (e).
AFFIRMED.