IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0700
Filed November 23, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
BRIAN NATHANIEL SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette L.
Boehlje, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals his sentence for willful injury causing bodily injury and
assault. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Brian Smith was convicted of two counts of willful injury causing bodily
injury and one count of assault, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1,
708.2(2), and 708.4(2) (2015). He was sentenced to two indeterminate terms of
incarceration not to exceed five years for the willful injury convictions and thirty
days in jail for the assault conviction, with all sentences to run concurrent with
each other.
On appeal, Smith argues the district court abused its discretion in not
granting his request for suspended sentences. “Sentencing decisions of the
district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.” State v.
Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). Where the defendant does not
assert the “sentence is outside statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only
for an abuse of discretion.” Id. “An abuse of discretion is found only when the
sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. The defendant bears a
heavy burden in establishing the district court abused its sentencing discretion.
See State v. Harris, 528 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
Other than mere disagreement with the sentencing court’s decision, Smith
does not identify the alleged abuse of discretion. We find none. The district
court recognized it had the discretion to select among several sentencing
options, considered only relevant factors in imposing sentencing—in particular,
the defendant’s extensive criminal history—and did not consider any
impermissible factors in imposing sentence. We thus affirm Smith’s sentences.
See, e.g., State v. Childs, No. 14-1950, 2016 WL 1130283, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App.
3
Mar. 23, 2016) (affirming challenge to sentence where defendant merely
disagreed with the sentence); State v. Pena, No. 15-0988, 2016 WL 1133807, at
*1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016) (stating “mere disagreement with the sentence
imposed, without more, is insufficient to establish an abuse of discretion”).
AFFIRMED.