IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0241
Filed January 27, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ALLEN DANIEL SMUCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Paul B. Ahlers,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant contends the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
him. AFFIRMED.
Melissa A. Nine of Nine Law Office, Marshalltown, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin Cmelik and Tyler J. Buller,
Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., Vaitheswaran and Bower, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, Judge.
Allen Daniel Smuck pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, second offense. See Iowa Code § 321J.2 (2013). The district court
sentenced him to a prison term not exceeding two years.
On appeal, Smuck concedes his sentence “was within the statutory limits
defined by Iowa law” but argues “the sentencing court failed to give adequate
reasons for the sentence imposed.” “When a sentence is imposed within
statutory limits, it will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion.” State v.
Neary, 470 N.W.2d 27, 29 (Iowa 1991).
The sentencing court articulated several reasons for the sentence:
Mr. Smuck, my goals are to provide for your rehabilitation and the
protection of the community. In trying to achieve those goals, to the
extent these details have been made known to me, I have taken
into account your age; your employment history; your family
circumstances and responsibilities, including your obligations to
your children; the nature of the offense and facts and
circumstances surrounding it; your prior criminal history, including
the fact that this is your sixth lifetime offense and including the fact
that you were on probation for your fifth lifetime offense when you
committed this crime; [and] the rehabilitation and the protection of
the community. . . .
You are hereby committed to the Director of Adult
Corrections for a period not to exceed two years. The mittimus on
that sentence shall issue immediately, and you are hereby
remanded to the custody of the county sheriff for implementation of
this sentence and transportation to the Oakdale Medical
Classification Center to begin serving your prison sentence. You
are to follow any recommendations for treatment or counseling
made as a result of your substance abuse evaluation. And you
shall enroll and complete the drinking driver’s school, if that is not
done through your programming in the prison system, as soon as
possible within 60 days of the issuance of this order.
....
Mr. Smuck, I’m not going to sit here and lecture you. I think
you understand why—or if you don’t, you should understand why
this sentence is being imposed. I hope [defense counsel’s] forecast
3
is not accurate and that you do not use this term of incarceration as
a way to give up on your goal of sobriety and that you don’t spend
your time just waiting until you can take your next drink. But if
that’s what you choose to do with this situation, that’s your choice.
We discern no abuse of discretion in this statement of reasons. Contrary to
Smuck’s assertion, the court considered Smuck’s prospect for rehabilitation. The
court’s disposition also did not render treatment and participation in the drinking
driver’s school an “impossibilit[y].”
We affirm Smuck’s sentence for operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated, second offense.
AFFIRMED.