IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-1258
Filed April 27, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TYRELLE RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Tamra J. Roberts,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence following a guilty plea. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by May, P.J., and Schumacher and Badding, JJ.
2
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Tyrelle Richardson appeals his sentence, claiming the district court abused
its discretion when it sentenced him to prison rather than probation. We find the
district court did not abuse its discretion. We affirm.
I. Background Facts & Proceedings
A criminal complaint was filed against Richardson on July 19, 2019, alleging
Richardson had intentionally driven his car into a police vehicle while trying to avoid
apprehension. Richardson entered a plea of not guilty on January 6, 2021. The
next day, the State filed a trial information charging Richardson with criminal
mischief in the second degree, as a habitual offender. The State offered
Richardson a plea deal, in which Richardson would plead guilty as charged and
pay restitution in the amount of $8562.25 to the city of Davenport. Under the plea
agreement, the State was free to make any sentencing recommendation but
agreed not to pursue the habitual offender enhancement. Richardson pled guilty
in April 2021.
A presentence investigation report (PSI) filed in July contained
Richardson’s previous criminal history, including convictions for robbery, theft, and
drug-related charges. The report noted that Richardson had plans to obtain his
commercial driver’s license. The PSI “guardedly recommend[ed]” probation.
Following a sentencing hearing held in September, the court sentenced
Richardson to five years in prison. Richardson appeals.1
1 The amendments to Iowa Code § 814.6 (Supp. 2019) apply to Richardson’s
appeal. But because he is challenging his sentence, rather than his guilty plea, he
has shown good cause for his appeal. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105
(Iowa 2020).
3
II. Standard of Review
“We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion or defect in the
sentencing procedure. An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts
on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. We give
sentencing decisions by a trial court a strong presumption in their favor.” State v.
Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015) (citations and quotation omitted). “On
our review, we do not decide the sentence we would have imposed, but whether
the sentence imposed was unreasonable.” Id. at 554 (citing State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002)).
III. Discussion
Richardson alleges the district court abused its discretion when sentencing
him to prison rather than probation. In particular, he claims the district court should
have adopted the recommendation in the PSI. He points both to his willingness to
pay restitution and professed desire to improve his behavior as mitigating factors.
Our courts have long recognized factors relevant to sentencing include “the
nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and
propensities and chance of [the defendant’s] reform.” Id. (alteration in original)
(quoting State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999)). Other factors courts
may consider include the defendant’s employment and family circumstances,
mental health and substance abuse, and “other factors as are appropriate.” Iowa
Code § 907.5 (2019). The district court should consider all relevant factors when
seeking to “provide [the] maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the
defendant and protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant
and others.” Id.
4
The district court made these findings during sentencing:
Specifically in this case, the Court has considered the defendant’s
age, the nature of the offense, his criminal history, which is—I guess
it’s somewhat lengthy, but it seems to be quite concerning the types
of charges that he’s pled guilty to in the past or have been found
guilty of in the past. The Court is concerned with the actual
underlying allegations of this case to which the defendant has pled
guilty. The Court finds there’s a need for a more specific and general
deterrence.
Here, the district court focused on the defendant’s age, circumstances of
the offense, the need for deterrence, and Richardson’s criminal history—all
appropriate considerations. It was not unreasonable to conclude Richardson’s
conduct—intentionally striking a police vehicle with his car while trying to avoid
arrest—coupled with his criminal history, warranted a term of incarceration. See
Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d at 555 (recognizing “the seriousness and gravity of the
offense is an important factor” during sentencing).
As to Richardson’s assertion about the recommendation for probation
contained in the PSI, courts can and should consider the recommendation and
other relevant information in the PSI. Here, the district court expressly noted
consideration of the PSI, stating, “I have reviewed the [PSI] and have considered
the information contained therein.” While the report is relevant, “a sentencing court
is not bound to follow a sentencing recommendation” in the PSI. Id. at 557. We
determine the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to follow the
recommendation in the PSI.
AFFIRMED.