State v. Goble

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Jacob Lee Goble, Appellant.

No. 22-1507

Supreme Court of Iowa

March 29, 2024

Submitted January 23, 2024

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Washington County, Shawn R Showers, Judge.

The defendant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision that rejected his claim that the sentencing court relied on an improper factor by mentioning parole. Decision of Court of Appeals and District Court Judgment Affirmed.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke and Anagha Dixit Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Mansfield, McDonald, and Oxley, JJ., joined. McDermott, J., filed a special concurrence. May, J., filed a special concurrence, in which Christensen, C.J., joined.

OPINION

Waterman, Justice.

In this appeal, we must decide whether the district court relied on an improper factor when it mentioned parole while sentencing the defendant to prison. The defendant, a recidivist drug offender, pleaded guilty to a class "D" felony and was sentenced to an indeterminate prison sentence of up to five years. In explaining the reasons for this sentence, the district court emphasized the defendant's need for a structured setting for his rehabilitation and, in that context, noted he would "be paroled at some point." The defendant appealed, contending that the court considered an improper factor-parole-in sentencing him. We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed his sentence, noting that Iowa's truth-in-sentencing statute, Iowa Code § 901.5(9)(b) (2021), requires public disclosure of his parole eligibility. We granted the defendant's application for further review.

On our review, we hold that the district court did not rely on an improper sentencing factor by mentioning parole as affecting the defendant's actual time served in the context of his need for rehabilitation and protection of the community. The district court did nothing to circumvent the parole board's discretion in determining his release date. The district court's reference to parole is authorized by statute. Accordingly, we affirm his sentence and the decision of the court of appeals.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On April 26, 2022, Jacob Lee Goble pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, third or subsequent offense, a class "D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). In his written guilty plea, he admitted to knowingly and intentionally possessing methamphetamine.

In August, the district court held a sentencing hearing. The State recommended sentencing Goble to a five-year prison term based on his "long criminal history," "history of unstable housing and unstable employment," and the presentence investigation report's recommendation for incarceration. Goble's counsel recommended a five-year suspended sentence and placement "on probation to the Department of Corrections or halfway house." Goble's counsel pointed to his successful completion of treatment "a few times in the last five years," his current job and housing situation, and his need for treatment while on probation.

The district court agreed with the State, based on "what will provide maximum opportunity for [Goble's] rehabilitation and at the same time protect the community from further offenses by [Goble]," and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of up to five years. The district court mentioned parole once in explaining the reasons for Goble's sentence:

And generally when I sentence an individual, I go straight to Iowa Code Section 907.5 to determine -- if I'm determining whether prison or probation is appropriate, and that code section lists your age as being a consideration. You're 30 years old. You're relatively young, but you're still old enough to know better.

Your prior record of convictions and your prior record of deferments of judgment, if any, and the Court notes at pages -- there were 5 pages of the 17 pages of the PSI that are just your criminal history.

Your employment circumstances, which I do think you're employable and you seem to have a willingness to work, which I would say is a mitigating factor, but you don't have a job right now because you've been incarcerated here.

Your substance abuse seems to be one of your biggest problems, but you have had opportunity to be in treatment before and to varying degrees of success.

I also consider the nature of the offense committed, which is a class D felony. There's no victims that got harmed in this, but based on the factors that I have to consider, and the fact that you're not requesting a more intense program, like a drug court, the best thing for your rehabilitation is to send you to Oakdale, for them to classify you, and then for you to be -- I don't know if they're going to send you to a different facility or keep you at Oakdale because you've done so much time in county jail.

It's a five-year sentence and it's a drug charge, so you're not going to do a lot of time, but you will be paroled at some point and you're going to have to make a decision at that point, am I going to keep doing this or am I going to turn my life around, because the only thing -- you need to go to counseling, you need to go to treatment, you need to go to meetings, you need to have people there to ensure that you're not using, and if I just put you on probation, I'm not a betting man, but I am almost 100 percent sure that we would be back in on a revocation within a matter of weeks, or at least months, based on your previous -- I'm just -- the best indicator of the future is what's in the past, so I'm going to sentence you to the term not to exceed five years and not suspend the sentence. IMCC is the reception center, and the Washington County sheriff will deliver you, or their designee, to IMCC. You get credit for all time served on this charge.

(Emphasis added.)

Goble appealed, arguing that the district court considered an improper sentencing factor by referring to parole as reducing "how long [he] would spend in custody." The State argued that the sentencing court's comment, in context, was permissible to "encourage Goble down the path of rehabilitation" and that Iowa's sentencing statutes allow for discussion of parole.

We transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed Goble's sentence, stating:

Goble failed to demonstrate that the [sentencing] court relied on an improper factor at sentencing. Pronouncing that a defendant's term of incarceration may be reduced by earned time or that the defendant may be eligible for parole is required by statute. Iowa Code § 901.5(9)(a)-(b). "Sentencing courts are not prohibited from referring to the possible effects of parole practices on the time that a defendant will actually serve." State v. Jason, No. 14-1162, 2015 WL 6510334, at *12 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2015). The district court did not improperly consider Goble's parole eligibility when formulating Goble's sentence.

Goble applied for further review, and we granted his application.

II. Standard of Review.

"Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of errors at law." State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). "We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure." Id. "A sentencing court's decision to impose a specific sentence that falls within the statutory limits '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. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 73 (Iowa 2021) (quoting Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724).

"Nevertheless, '[i]f a court in determining a sentence uses any improper consideration, resentencing of the defendant is required . . . even if it was merely a "secondary consideration." '" Id. (alteration and omission in original) (quoting State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (en banc)). The defendant "must overcome the presumption in favor of the sentence by affirmatively demonstrating the court relied on an improper factor." State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 106 (Iowa 2020).

III. Analysis.

We must decide whether the sentencing court relied on an improper factor when it stated:

It's a five-year sentence and it's a drug charge, so you're not going to do a lot of time, but you will be paroled at some point and you're going to have to make a decision at that point, am I going to keep doing this or am I going to turn my life around ....

(Emphasis added.) Goble quotes the foregoing passage in arguing that the sentencing court improperly considered parole as a factor in imposing his prison sentence. The State counters, and the court of appeals agreed, that sentencing courts may properly mention parole eligibility as affecting the duration of a prison sentence. We agree that the district court's reference to parole was proper as bearing on the time Goble may serve in prison, which was relevant to the court's goal of rehabilitation and protection of the community.

As the State notes, the district court mentioned parole in the context of encouraging rehabilitation and protecting the community. The court's mention of parole came in its discussion that prison would help Goble "turn [his] life around":

[Y]ou need to go to counseling, you need to go to treatment, you need to go to meetings, you need to have people there to ensure that you're not using, and if I just put you on probation, I'm not a betting man, but I am almost 100 percent sure that we would be back in on a revocation within a matter of weeks, or at

...