IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1346
Filed June 7, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LOREN ANTON GOODWIN III,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hamilton County, Paul B. Ahlers,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty.
AFFIRMED.
Jesse A. Macro Jr. of Macro & Kozlowski, LLP, West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Loren Goodwin III appeals the sentence imposed upon his pleas of guilty
to possession of methamphetamine, second offense, and eluding, in violation of
Iowa Code sections 124.401(5) and 321.279(2) (2016), both aggravated
misdemeanors. The plea agreement called for the State to dismiss other
pending charges and to make a sentencing recommendation of a two-year
suspended sentence on each conviction, to run concurrently, with credit for time
served and two years’ probation along with the applicable minimum fines,
surcharges, and court costs. The pleas were not conditioned on the court’s
acceptance.
After accepting the guilty pleas, the court ordered the preparation of a
presentence investigation (PSI) report, which recommended probation with
placement in a residential correctional facility and mental-health and substance-
abuse treatment. At sentencing, the court rejected the recommended sentence
under the plea agreement and the PSI, and instead it imposed a two-year term of
incarceration on each conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively to each
other and consecutive to the sentence for an offense committed in another
county, along with the minimum fines, surcharges, and court costs.
Goodwin appeals claiming the court abused its discretion in not ordering
probation in accordance with the plea agreement and the recommendation of the
PSI, and also for running the sentences consecutively in light of the fact the
eluding and possession of methamphetamine occurred at the same time.
“[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence within
the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only
3
be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate
matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). An abuse of
discretion occurs only when “the decision was exercised on grounds or for
reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id.
When imposing the sentence, the district court stated:
Mr. Goodwin, my goals with respect to sentencing are to
provide for your rehabilitation and protection of the community. In
trying to achieve those goals, to the extent these details have been
made known to me, I have taken into account the
recommendations of the parties, your age, your employment history
and circumstances and goals, your educational background, your
family circumstances and obligations, your ridiculous criminal
history, your appearance and demeanor here in the courtroom,
your substance abuse issues and needs, your mental health issues
and needs, the nature of the offense and facts and circumstances
surrounding it, and the other information presented here today in
this hearing, as well as in the Presentence Investigation Report.
....
. . . The reasons for consecutive sentences are as follows:
First of all, they are separate and distinct crimes. Even the
two crimes in this case, the possession of methamphetamine,
second offense, charge was unrelated to the eluding, although it
might have been an incentive for the eluding. It is a separate and
distinct crime, and separate punishments are appropriate, and
obviously those two crimes would also be appropriately separately
punished from the punishment imposed in your Boone County
case. Additionally, I believe consecutive sentences are appropriate
because of your criminal history, including prior terms in prison that
have apparently not deterred you from continuing to engage in
criminal conduct. You have had a fairly unbroken string of criminal
behavior since 1997. And unlike some people, it doesn’t seem to
be getting better as you get older, as the nature of the—as the
crimes just continue. I also think consecutive sentences are
appropriate because of the dangerous nature of the criminal
conduct involved in this case and your effort to avoid responsibility
for your drug crime by eluding law enforcement and exposing the
public and law enforcement to injury or death because of your
criminal behavior. And consecutive sentences are also appropriate
as part of the overall sentencing plan providing for your
rehabilitation and protection of the community.
In terms of whether to suspend or not suspend the
sentences that I have imposed here, Mr. Goodwin, I have
4
considered all the factors I mentioned previously, whether I have
gone into detail about them or not, and obviously the reasons for
the consecutive sentences also come into play in terms of deciding
whether to suspend the sentence or not. I have also taken into
account your history of lack of success on probation. There has
been numerous examples in your criminal history where you have
not successfully complied with probation. Your reference to the fact
that you were scared and didn’t know what to do when the police
tried to stop you is unavailing. The answer to that question is very
easy. You stop and take the punishment for whatever it is that you
were doing that you were afraid of getting caught doing. So for you
to elude law enforcement was inexcusable. In terms of your stated
intention to get substance abuse and mental health evaluation and
treatment, I agree that those things are needed and those are good
things that you are trying to accomplish, but I am also well aware of
the fact that you had ample opportunity over the course of the last
nineteen years while you have been building up this criminal history
to have that dawn on you, that you need that help or whatever you
need to motivate you to be law abiding, but you have not taken
advantage of that opportunity and have continued to commit
crimes. And so the request to suspend your sentence is denied.
We discern no improper consideration, nor do we detect an unreasonable
or untenable reason, for imposing prison terms and running the two-year prison
terms consecutively. See State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)
(noting the district court is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of
mitigation urged by a defendant [and] the failure to acknowledge a particular
sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered”). We
affirm the district court’s sentencing order.
AFFIRMED.
State of Iowa v. Loren Anton Goodwin III
Combined Opinion