IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1401
Filed March 25, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DENNIS LEE SCHRAGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James C.
Bauch, Judge.
Defendant appeals his sentences on two counts of providing a controlled
substance to a minor and four counts of third-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis D. Hendrickson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda Fangman, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., McDonald, J., and Eisenhauer, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
EISENHAUER, S.J.
Defendant Dennis Schrage appeals his sentences on two counts of
providing a controlled substance to a minor and four counts of third-degree
sexual abuse. The court sentenced Schrage in accordance with the parties’ plea
agreement. We conclude the court did not abuse its discretion and affirm the
sentences.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings.
Schrage was charged in a trial information with six crimes. Counts I and II
charged Schrage with distribution of a controlled substance (marijuana) to a
person under the age of eighteen, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.406(1)(a)
(2013), a class “B” felony. Counts III, IV, V, and VI charged him with sexual
abuse in the third degree, in violation of section 709.4(2)(c)(4), a class “C” felony.
On the four counts of third-degree sexual abuse, the State asserted Schrage
should be subject to enhanced sentencing under section 901A.2(3) because he
had been previously convicted of a sexual predatory offense.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Schrage entered Alford pleas to all six
counts.1 The parties agreed the sentences on Counts I and III would run
consecutively to each other and all the other sentences would run concurrently to
each other and to the sentences on Counts I and III, giving Schrage a total
sentence of fifty years. The district court accepted Schrage’s Alford pleas and
sentenced him according to the parties’ plea agreement. Schrage now appeals
his sentences.
1
In an Alford plea, a defendant pleads guilty to an offense, but does not admit to the
underlying facts of the crime. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970).
3
II. Standard of Review.
Where a defendant’s sentence is within the statutory limits, it will not be
vacated on appeal unless there has been an abuse of discretion or a defect in
the sentencing procedures, such as the court’s consideration of impermissible
factors. State v. Washington, 832 N.W.2d 650, 660 (Iowa 2013). There is an
abuse of discretion when the grounds for the court’s decision are clearly
untenable or unreasonable. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010).
III. Abuse of Discretion.
On appeal, Schrage claims the court abused its discretion by imposing
consecutive sentences for two violations of section 124.406(1)(a). The State
points out the court imposed consecutive sentences for Count I, distribution of a
controlled substance (marijuana) to a person under the age of eighteen, and
Count III, third-degree sexual abuse. In his reply brief, Schrage acknowledges
he did not receive consecutive sentences for two violations of section
124.406(1)(a). He received concurrent sentences for Counts I and II, both for
distribution of a controlled substance (marijuana) to a person under the age of
eighteen.
Schrage has raised no other claims on appeal. The court sentenced
Schrage in accordance with the parties’ plea agreement. We conclude the court
did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Schrage. We affirm Schrage’s
sentences.
AFFIRMED.