IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1043
Filed April 29, 2020
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIAN JACOB COREY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Tod Deck, Judge.
Brian Corey appeals his prison sentence. AFFIRMED.
Priscilla E. Forsyth, Sioux City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Doyle and May, JJ.
2
MAY, Judge.
Brian Corey pled guilty to possessing marijuana, third offense, a class “D”
felony, as well as delivery of methamphetamine, a class “C” felony. On appeal,
Corey argues the sentencing court abused its discretion by ordering consecutive
prison terms instead of probation. We affirm.
We review sentencing challenges “for abuse of discretion or defect in the
sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). We
bear in mind that “[t]he district court’s sentence is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor.” State v. Goad, No.17-1057, 2018 WL 2084834, at *1
(Iowa Ct. App. May 2, 2018) (citing State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa
2002)). And “[w]e afford [a] strong presumption of regularity to the sentencing
court due to the great confidence we place in our judges to exercise their discretion
appropriately.” Id. (citing State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 764 (Iowa 1998)). We
will find an abuse of discretion only “when a court acts on grounds clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d at 553
(citation omitted).
Corey claims the sentencing court failed to consider his testimony
concerning mitigating factors such as his attendance at treatment, his acceptance
into college, his employment and business opportunities, his lengthy period of
sobriety, and his mental-health struggles. We disagree. Rather, the record shows
the court considered Corey’s testimony but did not find him believable. We decline
to second guess the sentencing court’s credibility evaluations. State v. Farnum,
397 N.W.2d 744, 750 (Iowa 1986) (“The trial court was free to accept or disregard
evidence according to its own evaluation of credibility.”).
3
Moreover, the record shows the sentencing court specifically considered
Corey’s age, intelligence, ambition, likelihood of success on probation, and pro-
social activities (“assistance you’ve provided”). Additionally, the court specifically
considered the presentence investigation report, which contained extensive
mitigating information—and even recommended probation. So we find “no merit”
in Corey’s “contention that the court failed to give adequate consideration to the
mitigating circumstances of the case.” State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 679
(Iowa 1998).
The sentencing court properly exercised its discretion. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.