IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0823
Filed November 9, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EMMANUEL TERRILL PLEDGE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Christine Dalton
Ploof, District Associate Judge.
A defendant who pleaded guilty to driving while barred appeals his prison
sentence. AFFIRMED.
Lauren M. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin A. Guddall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
TABOR, Judge.
Emmanuel Pledge asks to be resentenced. He alleges the district court
abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence for his driving-while-barred
conviction. Because the district court appropriately focused on Pledge’s multiple
prior convictions for the same crime and the need for a prison sentence to deter
future offenses, we find no abuse of discretion.
An Iowa State Patrol officer stopped Pledge for speeding in August 2015
and discovered Pledge was barred from driving as an habitual offender until July
2021. The State charged Pledge with an aggravated misdemeanor—operating a
motor vehicle while license is barred, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.560
(2015), as an habitual offender.
In a written guilty plea dated October 10, 2015, Pledge acknowledged the
factual basis for his offense and recognized the court could sentence him “to
prison not to exceed two years and fine [him] between $625.00 and $6250.00,
plus surcharge and court costs.” In the written plea, Pledge expressly waived his
right to be present and participate in an in-court plea colloquy and his right to be
personally present and address the court at sentencing. On October 20, the
district court issued an order accepting Pledge’s written guilty plea to the driving-
while-barred offense.
In a May 13, 2016 sentencing order, the court noted Pledge appeared with
counsel and waived reporting of the plea and sentencing hearing. The
sentencing order offered the following insight into the unreported hearing:
Defendant was given an opportunity to speak in mitigation of the
sentence. The following sentence is based on all of the available
sentencing considerations set out in Iowa Code Section 907.5. The
3
Court finds the following factors the most significant to determine
this particular sentence:
The nature and circumstances of the crime;
Defendant’s criminal history, or lack thereof; [and]
Other[:] Defendant has over [ten] convictions for this same
offense and the many different attempts at probation and shorter
sentences that did not prevent further offenses.
The court imposed an indeterminate two-year term of incarceration with
credit for time served, running the time concurrently with another pending
sentence. The court imposed a $1500 fine but suspended it due to Pledge’s
incarceration. On appeal, Pledge contends the court abused its sentencing
discretion.
When the district court imposes a sentence within the statutory limit, the
sentence is “cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor.” State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We review the district court’s imposition of
sentence for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272
(Iowa 2016). The court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on
“clearly untenable” grounds or the extent of discretion exercised is “clearly
unreasonable.” Id. A court’s sentencing rationale is “untenable when it is not
supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous
application of the law.” Id. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires
the district court to provide “at least a cursory explanation” for the sentence
imposed to allow for appellate review of its exercise of discretion. State v.
Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). “[I]f the defendant waives reporting
of the sentencing hearing and the court fails to state its reasons for the sentence
in the written sentencing order, the court has abused its discretion . . . .” State v.
Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 921 (Iowa 2014).
4
On appeal, Pledge complains the sentencing court considered only his
criminal history at the expense of other factors. Pledge contends he had “no
opportunity to address the Court on the record,” and because a pre-sentence
investigation was not conducted, “it is unknown whether [he] was taking steps to
improve his behavior (for instance, completing substance abuse treatment or
counseling, or having gained stable employment) which would make prison an
unsuitable option for rehabilitation.”
The State responds that the sentencing court expressly stated that its
sentence was based on all of the circumstances in section 907.5.1 Then the
court identified the most significant factors driving its sentencing decision.2 The
State argues it was “not only logical but appropriate” for the court to choose
incarceration over probation given Pledge’s ten prior convictions for driving while
barred. The State further highlights the sentencing court’s concern that “many
different attempts at probation and shorter sentences . . . did not prevent further
offenses.” See State v. Mensah, 424 N.W.2d 453, 456 (Iowa 1988) (“[The
1
Iowa Code section 907.5(1) states:
Before . . . suspending sentence, the court first shall determine
which option, if available, will provide maximum opportunity for the
rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the community from
further offenses by the defendant and others. In making this
determination, the court shall consider all of the following:
a. The age of the defendant.
b. The defendant’s prior record of convictions . . . .
c. The defendant’s employment circumstances.
d. The defendant’s family circumstances.
e. The defendant’s mental health and substance abuse history
and treatment options available in the community and the correctional
system.
f. The nature of the offense committed.
g. Such other factors as are appropriate.
2
The court was not required to give reasons for rejecting a particular sentencing option.
See State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713–14 (Iowa 1995); accord State v. Thomas, 547
N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996).
5
defendant’s] failure to learn his lesson from his former involvement with the law
bore directly on his prospect for successful rehabilitation without more severe
sanction.”).
The State also debunks Pledge’s contention he did not have a chance to
present mitigating circumstances to the sentencing court. Pledge opted to file a
written guilty plea and waived reporting of his sentencing hearing. But the
sentencing order states: “Defendant was given an opportunity to speak in
mitigation of the sentence.” We are not persuaded on this record.
The sentencing order did contain some troubling boilerplate, including the
phrase—”defendant’s criminal history, or lack thereof”—which tells us nothing
about the court’s exercise of discretion. But the sentencing court cured that
problem by inserting into the order its reasons for choosing the particular
sentence for Pledge’s offense. See Thompson, 856 N.W.2d at 921 (“In this age
of word processing, [a court] can use forms . . . to check the boxes indicating the
reasons why a [court] is imposing a certain sentence. If the choices in the order
need further explanation, the [court] can do so by writing on the order or adding
to the order using a word processing program. If the sentencing order does not
have boxes similar to the ones in this case, the [court] can use [its] word
processor to insert the reasons for a particular sentence.”).
The court’s addition to the sentencing form indicated its concern about
Pledge’s incorrigible behavior in driving while his license was barred and
imposed incarceration because his prior probationary sentences had not worked
to deter his identical criminal conduct. “Enhancing punishment based on
recidivism fulfills the legitimate goals of incapacitation and deterrence.” State v.
6
Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636, 646 (Iowa 2012). We find no abuse of discretion in the
imposition of a period of incarceration or in the court’s stated reasons for that
sentence.
AFFIRMED.