IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 19-1004
Filed May 13, 2020
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHAWN EASTMAN-ADAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Grundy County, David P. Odekirk,
Judge.
Shawn Eastman-Adams appeals her sentence for theft in the second
degree. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Mullins and Ahlers, JJ.
2
AHLERS, Judge.
Shawn Eastman-Adams1 challenges the district court’s decision to send her
to prison after she was convicted of theft in the second degree as a habitual
offender.2 She asserts failure to suspend the prison sentence was an abuse of
discretion because the district court failed to adequately consider her difficult
childhood, her history as a victim of abuse, the length of time that passed since
her last felony convictions, the recommendation for a suspended sentence by the
presentence investigator, her mental health treatment needs, the non-violent
nature of her criminal history, and the fact that much of the stolen property had
been recovered.
We review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law. State v.
Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016). “[T]he decision of the district court to
impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or
the consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720,
1 During the sentencing hearing, the district court noted the defendant was now
known as Shawn Marie Tomkins. To maintain consistency with the district court
filings, we will refer to the defendant as Eastman-Adams throughout this opinion.
2 As a habitual offender as referenced in Iowa Code section 902.8 (2018),
Eastman-Adams was subject to a fifteen-year prison sentence pursuant to Iowa
Code section 902.9(1)(c). She was also not subject to a fine. See Iowa Code
§ 902.9(1)(e) (imposing a fine for a class “D” felony only when the felon is not a
habitual offender). In spite of these code provisions relating to habitual offenders,
the district court imposed a five-year prison sentence and also imposed a fine. The
fine was suspended even though no probation was imposed. See Iowa Code
§ 907.3(3) (permitting suspension of a portion of a sentence only when probation
is imposed). Since neither party raised an issue over the imposition of a five-year
prison sentence for a habitual offender, the imposition of a fine for a habitual
offender, or the suspension of the fine without imposition of probation, we do not
address and take no position on the propriety of those terms of the sentence.
3
724 (Iowa 2002). An abuse of discretion occurs “[w]hen the district court exercises
its discretion on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or
unreasonable.” State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 2014).
The district court gave the following explanation for the sentence imposed:
In pronouncing judgment and sentence today, I have considered the
factors set forth in the Iowa Code. I’ve given consideration to the
arguments of counsel today, the nature of the offense, the
defendant’s age and prior record, as well as her employment
circumstances, her disability circumstances as noted on the record
and other circumstances set forth in the Presentence Investigation
Report. . . .
In considering all those things, . . . I have looked at the nature
of this offense and specifically with regard to your past behavior and
although I would like to be able to believe you, what you’ve told me
today, I don’t and I am going to sentence you to a term of
imprisonment not to exceed five years with a mandatory minimum of
three years to be served before you’re eligible for parole, plus a $750
fine and 35 percent surcharge which I will suspend.
These statements, while terse and succinct, show the district court adequately
considered the issues raised by Eastman-Adams and considered appropriate
factors. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (noting a terse
and succinct statement of reasons for the sentence imposed satisfies the
requirements of Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d)). Likewise, these
statements show the district court did not consider any inappropriate factors. See
State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa 2015) (“When a sentence imposed
by a district court falls within the statutory parameters, we presume it is valid and
only overturn for an abuse of discretion or reliance on inappropriate factors.”). We
find no abuse of the district court’s discretion in imposing a prison sentence rather
than a suspended sentence. Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.