IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 4-057 / 13-0984
Filed March 12, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DESTINY LYNN CHAMBERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Howard County, George L. Stigler,
Judge.
A defendant appeals her prison sentence for possession of a firearm by a
felon. SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Rachel C. Regenold,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, Joseph M. Haskovec, County Attorney, and Alex Koenigs, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and McDonald, JJ.
2
TABOR, J.
Destiny Chambers appeals the prison sentence imposed following her
guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of Iowa Code section
724.26(1) (2011). She argues the district court considered an impermissible
factor in determining her sentence. She also contends the court ordered an
improper civil penalty. Chambers asks for a new sentencing hearing.
Because the district court admitted into evidence, over defense counsel’s
objection, a psychological assessment of Chambers ordered in an unrelated
case, and because that assessment alluded to unprosecuted criminal activity by
Chambers, we conclude resentencing is required. In addition, the parties agree
no statutory authority exists for the civil penalty. Accordingly, the civil penalty
may not be reinstated at the resentencing.
I. Background Facts And Proceedings
As a convicted felon, Destiny Chambers is not allowed to knowingly
possess a firearm.1 On October 14, 2011, law enforcement executed a search
warrant of Chambers’s residence. During the search Chambers handed the
officers a .40 caliber Glock handgun that was in a bag with a fifteen-round clip.
She admitted she should not be in possession of a gun.
On December 5, 2011, the State charged Chambers with possession of a
firearm by a felon, in violation of section 724.26(1). Chambers entered a guilty
plea on February 4, 2013. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed
1
“A person who is convicted of a felony in a state or federal court, . . . and who
knowingly has under the person’s dominion and control or possession, receives, or
transports or causes to be transported a firearm or offensive weapon is guilty of a class
‘D’ felony.” Iowa Code § 724.26(1).
3
several other charges,2 and the parties were free to argue the appropriate
sentence on the felon-in-possession offense. At the sentencing hearing
Chambers argued for probation, while the State argued for incarceration. On
May 29, 2013, the district court sentenced Chambers to a prison term not to
exceed five years. It also imposed and suspended a $750 fine with a thirty-five
percent surcharge. The court imposed a $200 civil penalty in the written
judgment order. Chambers now appeals the sentence.
II. Standard of Review
A sentence is reviewed for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
Sentencing decisions carry a strong presumption in their favor. State v. Loyd,
530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995). We will reverse a sentence only if the
defendant demonstrates an abuse of the district court’s discretion or a defect in
the sentencing procedure, such as the court considering an impermissible factor.
State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). When a court uses any
improper consideration, even if it is a secondary consideration, resentencing is
required. State v. Messer, 306 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 1981).
III. Analysis
A sentencing court cannot consider unproven or unprosecuted offenses
unless the defendant admits to them or facts are presented to prove them. State
v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002). We will not infer the court
considered an improper factor if it is not apparent from the record. Id. Our goal
is not to second guess the sentencing decision but to determine if the decision
2
In exchange for her guilty plea, the State dismissed three unrelated charges filed
against Chambers subsequent to the felon-in-possession offense.
4
rests on an untenable or improper ground. See State v. Gartin, 271 N.W.2d 902,
910 (Iowa 1978).
During the May 29, 2013 sentencing hearing, the State offered a
psychological evaluation of Chambers completed on January 25, 2013, in
connection with an unrelated child-in-need-of-assistance (CINA) action. The
State indicated defense counsel had received a copy of the evaluation. Defense
counsel objected to the admission of the evaluation into evidence at the
sentencing hearing because the preparer was not present for cross-examination.
Counsel argued the presentence investigation (PSI) provided sufficient
information to the court concerning his client’s substance abuse treatment and
other disorders. The court “noted [the] objections” but received the evaluation as
an exhibit.
The evaluation—conducted by Dr. Joseph Breitenstein to assess
Chambers’s “general personality functioning and parenting potential”—contains
information from Lutheran Services of Iowa worker Jennifer Dailey-Oaks. Dailey-
Oaks reported Chambers “frequently comes up with excuses and often makes
numerous requests for gas cards, etc., and then will use the gas or tangible
services provided, but not go to appointments, etc., and gamble, stay at nice
hotels, and use drugs.” Dr. Breitenstein then wrote Chambers “has manipulated
the treatment system to her advantage, essentially stealing money for drug use
and other sensation seeking when she was supposed to be using this for
traveling to see her children.”
5
Our record does not show the State charged Chambers with theft or drug
offenses in connection with that alleged conduct nor did she admit to committing
such offenses.
The sentencing court stated:
I did read the report of the psychological evaluation of Ms.
Chambers conducted by Dr. [Breitenstein]. I guess my reading of
that report and my reading of the presentence report would cause
me to take some question as to whether Ms. Chambers really has
learned much and whether she has the ability to follow the rules.
I heard her testimony that she has made changes since the
last three months and that she’s now able and willing to follow
rules, but that has not proven to be the case for the last many years
and according to Dr. [Breitenstein], probably won’t be the rule for
quite some time to come. Ms. Chambers, clearly with seven
commitments to prison, you seem committed to live your life as Dr.
[Breitenstein] would indicate, that you seem to think that the rules
don’t apply to you and that you take some personal pleasure in not
following rules or living up to expectations and that you seem to
desire to follow your own path in life and do precisely whatever it is
that you want to do, whatever the rules may be to the contrary.
This is at least to my analysis in keeping with your personality and
how you have chosen to live your life up to this point.
The court acknowledged reading the psychologist’s report and considering
his evaluation of Chambers along with the presentence investigation report. The
court referred to the psychologist’s opinion two more times while giving its
reasons for rejecting probation. The psychologist’s opinion regarding
Chambers’s noncompliance in the CINA case incorporated his belief she was
“stealing proceeds from gas cards”—an uncharged and unproven allegation of
theft. The judge’s statements indicate he considered the psychologist’s opinion,
which relied on factual circumstances surrounding an unprosecuted offense.
Because we cannot evaluate the influence of those factual circumstances, we
6
must strike down the sentence. See State v. Black, 324 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Iowa
1982).
The State argues we should presume the sentencing court ignored any
inappropriate information in the psychological evaluation, citing State v. Sailer,
587 N.W.2d 756, 762 (Iowa 1998) (discerning no reliance on improper factors
which would overcome presumption of regularity in sentencing). The State made
the same argument in State v. Matheson, 684 N.W.2d 243, 244 (Iowa 2004),
citing Sailer’s presumption of regularity. We cannot entertain that presumption
on this record.
Although sentencing hearings need not conform to all requirements of a
criminal trial, fundamental fairness is required. State v. Ashley, 462 N.W.2d 279,
282 (Iowa 1990). Where the district court allows in evidence intended to
influence the sentencing selection—over the objection of defense counsel—we
can no longer assume the court did not consider impermissible information
contained in the challenged evidence. See Matheson, 684 N.W.2d at 244
(reasoning that by overruling the defendant’s objection to the victim impact
statements, the court determined the evidence was admissible at the sentencing
hearing and nothing in the record indicated the court changed its mind before
pronouncing sentence). Under Matheson,3 once defense counsel unsuccessfully
3
The dissent accurately distinguishes Matheson as involving out-of-state victim impact
statements, a factor not at play here. But the dissent reads Matheson too narrowly. The
prejudice recognized in Matheson did not flow from the mere submission of impact
statements from people who did not meet the statutory definition of victim, but rather
from the fact the statements contained information regarding unrelated crimes
committed in another state. See State v. Tesch, 704 N.W.2d 440, 453–54 (Iowa 2005)
7
challenged the exhibit,4 the sentencing judge was not merely aware of the
uncharged offenses but could be presumed to have incorporated them into the
sentencing decision. See id. (explaining the State was not “rescued” by holding
in Ashley, 462 N.W.2d at 282 (requiring affirmative showing sentencing court
relied on uncharged offense)).
Because we cannot speculate about the weight the sentencing court
“mentally assigned” to impermissible information in the psychologist’s evaluation,
or “whether it tipped the scales to imprisonment,” we must vacate the sentence
and remand for resentencing. See Messer, 306 N.W.2d at 733. We have no
way to know what sentence would have been pronounced without consideration
of the evaluation’s references to unproven offenses. See State v. Thomas, 520
N.W.2d 311, 314 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for
resentencing without consideration of the impermissible information contained in
Dr. Breitenstein’s evaluation.5 We do not suggest what the sentence should be.
Messer, 306 N.W.2d at 733.
Furthermore, the State and Chambers agree the district court erred in
imposing a civil penalty of $200. The court did not cite any statutory authority for
the civil penalty. The legislature authorized civil penalties for sex offenses and in
(distinguishing Matheson and finding no prejudice where impermissible victim impact
statement did not discuss unproven crimes).
4
The dissent asserts the exhibit was admissible and the district court’s evidentiary ruling
was correct. Those assertions are debatable, given the fact the evaluation was admitted
separately from the PSI report. See Ashley, 462 N.W.2d at 281 (opining information
available to the State before the sentencing hearing must be part of the PSI); see also
Iowa Code §§ 901.3, 901.4 (listing information about the defendant’s mental health and
substance abuse issues as part of the confidential PSI).
5
We do not rule out the possibility the evaluation could be redacted to omit the
objectionable contents.
8
connection with deferred judgments. See Iowa Code §§ 692A.110(2), 907.14(3).
Neither of those code sections is in play here. The $200 civil penalty is vacated
and shall not be reinstated when Chambers is resentenced. See State v. Keutla,
798 N.W.2d 731, 735 (Iowa 2011).
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Vogel, P.J., concurs; McDonald, J. concurs in part and dissents in part.
9
MCDONALD, J. (dissents in part)
I concur in the conclusion the civil penalty was not authorized by statute
and must be vacated. However, because Chambers has not carried the heavy
burden of establishing the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing the
remainder of the sentence, I would affirm the remainder of the sentence.
“The [sentencing] decisions of the trial court are cloaked with a strong
presumption in their favor . . . .” State v. Stanley, 344 N.W.2d 564, 568 (Iowa Ct.
App. 1983). It is the defendant’s burden to overcome the presumption of
regularity by making an affirmative showing that the trial court abused its
discretion. See id. This burden is “heavy.” Id. Where the defendant alleges the
sentencing court took into consideration an impermissible sentencing factor, such
as unproved or unprosecuted offenses, the presumption of regularity can be
overcome only where there is “clear evidence” the sentencing court actually
relied on the impermissible factor in exercising its broad sentencing discretion.
Sailer, 587 N.W.2d at 764. This strong presumption of regularity is afforded the
sentencing court due to our “great confidence in judges” to exercise their
discretion appropriately. See id. We will neither “assume a judge failed to do so”
nor infer a judge failed to do so without clear evidence in the record to the
contrary. Id.; see Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725.
Relying on Matheson, 684 N.W.2d at 244, the majority states that it
“cannot entertain” the long-standing presumption the sentencing court exercised
its discretion appropriately. Instead, the majority states it presumes the opposite
because Dr. Breitenstein’s report was admitted into evidence over defendant’s
10
objection. This result is not required by Matheson. In Matheson, the sentencing
court allowed out-of-state victims of similar but separate crimes committed by the
defendant to present statements at sentencing. See 684 N.W.2d at 244. This
was in clear contravention of the wholly statutorily-created right of victims to
present statements. See id; Iowa Code § 915.10(3) (defining “victim” as a
person who suffered harm as a result of an offense committed in this state); Iowa
Code § 915.21(1) (providing a “victim” may present an impact statement at
sentencing). Thus, the question presented in Matheson was not whether the
court considered unprosecuted or unproved charges; the statements were from
victims of crimes for which defendant was convicted. Instead, the “sole issue”
presented in Matheson was whether the legal error of allowing impact statements
of persons not “victims,” within the meaning of the statute, to be presented at
sentencing was harmless. See 684 N.W.2d at 243. The Matheson court itself
recognized the issue was “exceptionally narrow.” Id. In addressing that narrow
issue, the Matheson court presumed the sentencing court considered the impact
statements because the court allowed the statements to be presented over the
objection of counsel. It is a fair presumption that a sentencing court takes into
consideration the statements and evidence admitted at sentencing. Given that
presumption, however, the sentencing court’s consideration of the victim impact
statements could not be harmless error as consideration of any part of any of the
statements necessarily was improper because the statements, in their entirety,
were inadmissible. Matheson thus involved the question of whether the
presumption of regularity should be set aside when the sentencing court commits
11
legal error arising from the consideration of inadmissible evidence. That is not
this case.
Here, Chambers objected to Dr. Breitenstein’s report on the grounds that
he could not confront and cross-examine the preparer of the report. The
sentencing court noted the objections but received the exhibit. On appeal,
Chambers does not challenge the ruling. It appears that the district court
correctly received the exhibit based on the merits of the objection actually made
as opposed to other possible objections that could have been made. See
Stanley, 344 N.W.2d at 570 (“Sentencing procedures are governed by different
evidentiary rules than the trial itself. The sentencing judge should be in
possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and
characteristics and should not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent
information by rigid adherence to restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable
to trial.”); State v. Cole, 168 N.W.2d 37, 41 (Iowa 1969) (“During sentencing
procedure defendant does not have a constitutional right to confront all witnesses
against him. . . . But the sentencing judge may consider information, even
though obtained outside the courtroom, from persons whom the defendant has
not been permitted to confront or cross-examine.”). This case thus presents the
question of whether the presumption of regularity afforded the sentencing court
should be disturbed when it correctly admits an exhibit into evidence over the
objection of counsel.
The majority concludes that the district court’s correct evidentiary ruling
reverses the presumption of regularity and creates a presumption of irregularity
12
that requires the sentencing court to specifically negate consideration of any
piece of information relating to an impermissible sentencing factor contained in
an otherwise admissible exhibit. I conclude that this case is controlled by Sailer.
When the district court considers admissible evidence that might contain stray
pieces of information relating to impermissible sentencing factors, we presume
that the sentencing court “will filter out improper or irrelevant evidence” without
requiring the sentencing court to negative each and every piece of information
that might possibly relate to uncharged or unproved conduct. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d
at 764. That presumption can be overcome only by the defendant making an
affirmative showing that the sentencing court considered the impermissible
information in making its sentencing determination. As set forth in Sailer and the
numerous cases cited therein, this requires a fairly explicit statement by the
sentencing court that it relied on the impermissible information. While the
sentencing court here acknowledged that it relied on the doctor’s report in
making its sentencing determination, there is no indication that the court was
sentencing this defendant for unprosecuted or unproved offenses that may or
may not be referenced in the report.
“Trial courts are granted wide discretion in sentencing.” State v. Bragg,
388 N.W.2d 187, 193 (Iowa Ct. App. 1986) (Donielson, J., concurring).
Competing policy considerations “seem to be at loggerheads,” however, placing
sentencing courts in an “unenviable, no-win position.” Id. “On the one hand, we
want judges to consider all the factors in the record and presentence report and
be open and frank about their sentencing decisions, . . . while, on the other hand,
13
we do not want judges considering any impermissible factors during
sentencing . . . .” Id. “If appellate courts constantly reverse and remand
sentences which contain proper reasons for sentencing which also go on to state
other reasons and observations, then sentencing will turn into a ritualistic
proceeding.” Id. at 194. “Rather than forcing trial courts to turn sentencing into a
formalistic and hypertechnical proceeding, . . . if the sentencing judge states
proper reasons based on appropriate foundations in the record, then we should
not look beyond that point.” Id.
With these things in mind, I cannot embrace a rule that creates a
presumption the sentencing court abused its discretion when it considers
admissible evidence simply because defense counsel objects. Nor do our cases
require such a result. It is one thing to say, as in Matheson, that we can presume
the district court committed non-harmless error when it erroneously considered
inadmissible evidence. It is another thing to say, as here, that we can presume
the district court abused its discretion when it committed no error in admitting an
eight-page exhibit that may contain one or two statements that, arguably, refer to
unproved offenses. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
State of Iowa v. Destiny Lynn Chambers
Combined Opinion