IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1063
Filed June 10, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WILLIE LEE CAMPBELL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, Michael J.
Schilling, Judge.
The defendant appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of guilty
to third-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda Nye, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, Patrick C. Jackson, County Attorney, and Lisa K. Schaefer, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, 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.
Willie Lee Campbell appeals the sentence imposed following his plea of
guilty to third-degree sexual abuse. He contends the court abused its discretion
in sentencing him to a prison term by giving too much weight to his early criminal
history and failing to consider his chances for reform. Because the sentence
imposed upon Campbell is within the statutory parameters, we presume it is valid
and will only overturn it if the court abused its discretion or relied on inappropriate
factors. See State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa 2015).
The goal of the court in sentencing a defendant is to determine which
sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the
defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the
defendant and others.” Iowa Code § 901.5 (2013). The legislature has set forth
specific factors to be considered in making this determination, which include the
defendant’s age, prior record of convictions and deferred judgments, employment
and family circumstances, and mental health and substance abuse history, as
well as the nature of the offense committed and “[s]uch other factors as are
appropriate.” Id. § 907.5(1). Ultimately, the court must determine each sentence
on an individual basis, fitting the sentence to the particular person affected.
Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d at 555.
Before pronouncing sentence, the district court informed Campbell it
would look at his life from the beginning to the present time “because I don’t think
it’s fair to isolate out portions of a person’s life and argue that any one slice is
necessarily a representative sample of the entirety.” The court gave the following
reasons for imposing a prison term:
3
I believe that your criminal record, coupled with your age and the
facts and circumstances of this offense, compel a term of
confinement. I think to do anything less would really undermine
and depreciate the seriousness of this offense, particularly
concerning your age, your history of assaultive behavior, and your
prior history of escape or escape-related conduct.
Campbell argues the court gave too much weight to his early criminal
history as evidenced by its reference to viewing Campbell’s “entire history” and
specifically referencing his history of “escape or escape-related conduct,” which
was more than ten years old.1 A defendant’s conviction record is one of the
factors the legislature expressly states is to be considered by the court in
sentencing a defendant. Iowa Code § 907.5(1)(b). The weight to give a relevant
factor in determining an appropriate sentence “inheres in the discretionary
standard.” State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983). There is nothing
“clearly untenable” about the way the court exercised its discretion in considering
Campbell’s criminal history.
Campbell also complains the court “gave no indication” it considered the
employment or family support available to him if released. While the court must
state its reasons for imposing a sentence on the record, there is no requirement
for the court to specifically mention each factor it has considered in formulating
an individual sentence; a cursory explanation of the reasons for imposing a
sentence is sufficient if it allows for appellate review of the trial court’s
discretionary action. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010). Here,
1
Campbell notes approximately one dozen of the charges listed under the “Arrest
History Comments” section of the presentence investigation report were dismissed.
However, he does not specifically allege the trial court relied on any unproven offenses
in sentencing him, and there is no evidence the court relied on unproven offenses in
making its sentencing determination.
4
the court stated it was reviewing Campbell’s entire background “as it’s disclosed
to me in the presentence investigation and based upon the exhibits and
testimony that I received today.” This information included evidence regarding
Campbell’s employment opportunities and family circumstances.
Because Campbell has failed to show the court abused its discretion in
sentencing him to a prison term, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.