IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1869
Filed August 17, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
MICHAEL AARON DUTCHER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Ida County, Patrick H. Tott, Judge.
Michael Dutcher appeals from the sentence entered upon his conviction
for first-degree robbery. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Tabor, JJ.
2
DANILSON, Chief Judge.
Michael Dutcher appeals from the sentence entered upon his conviction
for first-degree robbery. The sentencing court “considered multiple factors in
analyzing the situation,” including “the defendant’s age and circumstances of his
upbringing [and] the nature of the offense committed.” It also considered “the
victim impact statements,” which it believed were “heartfelt” and reflected the
bank employees’ personal experiences “both during the incident, shortly after the
incident, and to this date.” It acknowledged the tragic events in Dutcher’s life,
“especially involving the death of [his] parents.” The sentencing court ultimately
decided to impose a sentence to be served consecutively to a robbery sentence
from Woodbury County.
On appeal Dutcher contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
provide evidence to support his request for concurrent sentences. Dutcher
states, “It was not enough for counsel to argue that defendant was mentally
immature and had lived a devastating upbringing, or lack thereof.” He argues
trial counsel should have presented expert testimony about brain development in
persons like twenty-one-year-old Dutcher and his potential for rehabilitation.
Because this record is barren of any indication such expert evidence is
available or applicable, we preserve Dutcher’s claim for possible postconviction
proceedings. See State v. Straw, 709 N.W.2d 128, 138 (Iowa 2006) (“In only
rare cases will the defendant be able to muster enough evidence to prove
prejudice without a postconviction relief hearing.”). We affirm.
AFFIRMED.