State of Iowa v. Benjamin Larry Earnest Kutzner

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: September 13, 2023
• Docket: 22-1067
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1067 Filed September 13, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BENJAMIN LARRY EARNEST KUTZNER, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M. Riley,

District Associate Judge.

Benjamin Kutzner appeals the sentence imposed in his criminal case.

AFFIRMED.

Heidi Miller of Gribble, Boles, Stewart & Witosky Law, Des Moines, for

appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Ahlers and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

AHLERS, Judge.

A jury found Benjamin Kutzner guilty of the offenses of prohibited person in

possession of ammunition, prohibited person in possession of a firearm, going

armed with intent, harassment in the first degree, and assault causing bodily injury.

At sentencing, Kutzner argued for a suspended sentence and probation while the

State argued for an indeterminate prison sentence not to exceed fifteen years. The

district court sentenced him to an indeterminate term not to exceed ten years by

running two of the five-year sentences consecutively and running all other

sentences concurrently. On appeal, Kutzner claims the district court abused its

discretion by sentencing him to prison rather than suspending the sentence.

We review criminal sentences for correction of errors at law. State v.

Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 65 (Iowa 2022). Sentencing decisions are cloaked with

a strong presumption in their favor and will only be overturned by a showing of

abuse of discretion or consideration of improper factors. Id. Abuse of discretion

occurs only when the sentencing decision is based on grounds or reasons that are

clearly untenable or clearly unreasonable. Id.

Kutzner does not claim his sentence is based on unreasonable or untenable

grounds. Nor does he argue the court considered improper factors. Instead, he

simply argues a suspended sentence fulfills the goals of sentencing better than

incarceration. The court considered and rejected this argument in selecting the

sentence. We find no abuse of discretion in the court’s sentencing decision and

affirm without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(e) (allowing memorandum

opinions when “[a] full opinion would not augment or clarify existing case law”).