Opinion
22-2064
10-25-2023
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COURTNEY EDWARD McMILLIAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling, Judge.
A defendant appeals the sentences imposed following his guilty pleas. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ.
AHLERS, Judge.
Courtney McMillian entered into a global plea agreement resolving his charges in five separate cases. He ultimately pleaded guilty to five counts of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance-one count from each case in exchange for dismissal of other charges. Each crime to which he pleaded guilty is a class "C" felony carrying up to ten years in prison. The plea agreement called for the State to recommend four of the sentences to be served concurrently to each other and consecutively to the fifth, resulting in a recommendation for an indeterminate prison term not to exceed twenty years. At sentencing, the State made the agreed recommendation. The plea agreement was an "open plea," allowing McMillian to argue for any lawful sentence. McMillian requested suspension of the sentences and placement in a residential correctional facility (RCF)-citing his long history of substance abuse, rehabilitative efforts while jailed, and family responsibilities. Following McMillian's allocution, the district court pronounced a sentence that adopted the State's recommendation. The court gave the following explanation:
He pleaded guilty to one count of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, three counts of possession with intent to deliver heroin, and one count of possession with intent to deliver fentanyl.
The court has heard the statements of counsel. The court has reviewed the [presentence investigation report]. Based on all of the factors that are set forth by each of those parties, the court believes that the sentencing recommendation contained in the plea agreement is the appropriate sentencing result, which would involve prison with consecutive sentencing as indicated in the plea agreement.
The court believes that the reason for the consecutive sentencings is based on the seriousness of these offenses, the impact that these sort of offenses has on the community.
Reason for the sentencing itself, for imprisonment rather than RCF, is based on the RCF's evaluation of the defendant and their rejection of his application to enroll, as well as the fact that the defendant seems to do well in a more controlled environment and I think he would benefit from the programming that would be available to him through the [department of corrections].
The court did not provide any additional reasoning or rationale for sentencing in its written sentencing order.
McMillian appeals. He argues the district court failed to provide "specific valid" reasoning for imposing the chosen sentence and contends he and the public would be better served through his placement at the RCF.
McMillian has good cause to challenge sentencing. See Iowa Code § 815.6(1)(a)(3) (2022) (requiring a defendant who pleads guilty to any offense other than a class "A" felony to establish good cause to appeal); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (holding a defendant has good cause to appeal following a guilty plea when the defendant is challenging the sentence imposed).
We review sentencing challenges for correction of errors at law. State v. Fetner, 959 N.W.2d 129, 133 (Iowa 2021). Sentencing courts are afforded a great deal of latitude in exercising discretion in sentencing. Id. When, as here, the sentence imposed is within statutory limits, it "is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters." State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). A sentencing court abuses its discretion only when the discretion is exercised for reasons that are clearly untenable or clearly unreasonable. State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022).
McMillian specifically complains "the district court abused its discretion when it failed to provide specific valid reasons for sentencing McMillian to prison." He contends the district court's consideration of the RCF's rejection of his application was not a valid reason for sentencing because the court could overrule that determination and order placement at the facility. Regardless of whether the court could have ordered McMillian to the RCF even though the presentence investigation report indicated the facility had rejected McMillian as a potential resident, we disagree with McMillian's contention that the rejection was not a valid factor for the court to consider. The court was permitted to consider the rejection when making a sentencing determination because it indicated McMillian was not a good candidate for that program. As to the court's reliance on his success "in a more controlled environment," McMillian claims nothing in the record supports that finding. We disagree. McMillian made clear that he had been doing well while jailed and awaiting sentencing. His counsel highlighted that while jailed, McMillian received "certificates of completion for domestic violence education prevention self-study, cognitive awareness program self-study, and, finally, a certificate of completion where he has successfully completed phase one of the Center for Alcohol &Drug Services." This information supports the court's conclusion that McMillan would thrive in a more controlled environment, making it a valid and individualized reason for imposing the selected sentences.
McMillian's appellate brief goes on to argue why placement at the RCF would be more beneficial for him and highlights his motivations for staying out of trouble-again noting his young child and elderly parent both rely on him. But McMillian already had his opportunity to advocate for a particular sentence at the sentencing hearing. It is not for this court to substitute its own reasoning for that of the sentencing court. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725 ("[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court ...."). Because we do not find any abuse of discretion in the court's sentencing decision, we will not disturb the sentences imposed.
AFFIRMED.