IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-0329
Filed October 25, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ARON JON BIERL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Floyd County, DeDra L. Schroeder,
Judge.
The defendant appeals his sentence for possession of a firearm by a
domestic violence offender. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Maria L. Ruhtenberg,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Aron Bierl appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to possession of a
firearm by a domestic violence offender, pursuant to Iowa Code section
724.26(2)(a) (2016).
Local police received a call for a welfare check in March 2016; the caller
stated there were young children home alone at Bierl’s house. When the officers
arrived at the home, they found the two children and then “cleared” the house for
any adults. None were present. The officers noted the presence of a firearm in
plain view. Based on this, the officers obtained a warrant to search the home.
Upon its execution, the officers discovered a second firearm and a large amount
of ammunition. At the time, Bierl was subject to two protective orders—one for
his former wife and one for a former girlfriend. As a result, he was charged with
two counts of possession of a firearm by a domestic violence offender in April.1
In November, pursuant to a plea agreement with the State, Bierl pled
guilty to one of the counts and the other was dismissed. Additionally, the State
agreed not to make any recommendation at sentencing, and Bierl was free to
advocate for a deferred judgment.
Bierl was sentenced in February 2017. At the sentencing hearing, Bierl
asked the court to defer judgment and place him on probation. He stated that he
is an avid hunter and would like to get his gun rights back. He also stated he had
completed intensive outpatient treatment for alcohol abuse and was attending
mental-health treatment and taking his prescribed medications. The court noted
1
Bierl filed a motion to suppress, arguing the warrantless search of the home was
invalid. The court denied the motion, ruling the first gun was found while the officers
were properly in the home conducting a bonafide community caretaker activity.
3
Bierl had been convicted of harassment and had a third protective order entered
against him since the date of the possession charge.
The court stated it would be adopting the recommendations of the report
from the presentence investigation (PSI) and sentenced Bierl to a term of
incarceration not to exceed five years. The court noted:
They do give you credit in the presentence investigation
report for being involved in mental health and substance abuse
treatment and being dedicated to that.
And, frankly, I’m—I’m not focusing a lot on necessarily what
came out of the divorce decree, but I’m looking at, instead, the
nature of the offense. And I perceive it as sort of an inability to take
responsibility for your actions and, instead, kind of take what you
did and—and blame it towards wife, girlfriend, other people
involved in your life. And it’s unfortunate.
And it’s unfortunate you picked up a harassment charge
following this offense date. And, again, somehow that seemed to
be somebody else’s fault.
So I’m looking at your age. I’m looking at your record of
convictions. I’m looking at your employment circumstances, the
nature of the offense, whether a weapon was involved. And,
obviously, it was. Your financial circumstances and the need to
protect the community.
For all those reasons, I’m going to adopt the presentence
investigation report recommendations. What that means to you is
you’re going to be sentenced to five years to the custody of the
Director of the Department of Corrections. That term of
imprisonment is not suspended.
Bierl maintains the district court abused its discretion when it imposed his
sentence; he claims the court improperly focused on one factor and failed to
consider any of the mitigating factors in his favor.
Here, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits. See Iowa
Code §§ 724.26(2)(1) (stating the offense is a “D” felony), 902.9(1)(e) (stating a
class “D” felon “shall be confined no more than five years”). Thus, it is “cloaked
with strong presumption in its favor,” and we will not reverse “absent an abuse of
4
discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 720).
Bierl claims the court focused on the fact that he did not take responsibility
for his actions when reaching its sentencing decision; he also maintains the
court’s statement that he had not taken responsibility was factually incorrect
because he pled guilty to the offense. Although Bierl entered a guilty plea, he
also continued to downplay his role in the crime. According to the PSI report,
when asked for his version of the events, Bierl stated he “felt awful about the
crime” but also stated he wished “his ex-wife would be held accountable for
cheating on him”; his conviction was not appropriate, police officers “lied at
depositions about a lot of things”; he thought the way everything occurred was a
“screwy deal”; the charges were the result of “stupid police work”; and the charge
did not seem right. The court’s statement that Bierl continued to blame others for
his charge and the resulting conviction was not inaccurate. Additionally, the
court considered more than Bierl’s action of continuing to blame others, including
mitigating factors. The court gave Bierl “credit . . . for being involved in mental
health and substance abuse treatment and being dedicated to that.”
Because the court considered the appropriate factors before reaching its
sentencing decision, we affirm Bierl’s sentence. See State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d
545, 553 (Iowa 2015) (“[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision
made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on
untenable grounds.”).
AFFIRMED.