State of Iowa v. Darius Billy Hayes

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 21, 2024
• Docket: 23-2050
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-2050 Filed August 21, 2024

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DARIUS BILLY HAYES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Patrick A. McElyea,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his criminal sentences. AFFIRMED.

Pamela Wingert of Wingert Law Office, Spirit Lake, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Greer, P.J., and Ahlers and Badding, JJ. 2

BADDING, Judge.

Darius Hayes pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, third or

subsequent offense, and felon in possession of a firearm. At the sentencing

hearing, the State recommended prison for Hayes, noting his “significant past

criminal history,” failure to cooperate with the presentence investigation, and arrest

while out on bond. Defense counsel requested suspended sentences and

probation, highlighting Hayes’s “significant medical issues” and “substance abuse

addiction.” While defense counsel agreed that Hayes has “a rather long record,”

he argued prison was “not the answer [for] somebody who suffers from substance

abuse addiction.”

In reaching its sentencing decision, the district court noted that it considered

“the appropriate rehabilitative plan for” Hayes, services available in the community,

protection of the public, the nature and impact of the crimes, and Hayes’s

willingness to accept change and treatment. The court agreed that “prison is not

a treatment facility” but determined “that’s not a driving force.” It also determined

the factors highlighted by the State favored incarceration. So the court sentenced

Hayes to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed five years.

Hayes appeals those sentences, claiming the “court abused its discretion

by failing to sentence him to probation.” We review sentencing decisions for

correction of errors at law and “will not reverse the decision of the district court

absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State

v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Because sentencing decisions

“are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor,” State v.

Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000), our job is not to second guess 3

those decisions but instead determine whether they are “unreasonable or based

on untenable grounds.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725.

Hayes argues probation with substance-use treatment would have

optimized his chances for reform, and the district court failed to properly consider

his need for treatment, “his serious medical conditions,” and “the best options

available for achieving . . . rehabilitation.” We reject this argument for two reasons.

First, Hayes has not affirmatively shown the district court ignored these

mitigating factors. See State v. Wickes, 910 N.W.2d 554, 572 (Iowa 2018). They

were outlined in the unchallenged presentence investigation report and

addendums considered by the court and highlighted by defense counsel at the

sentencing hearing. In any event, a sentencing court is not required to specifically

acknowledge each mitigating factor urged by a defendant. See State v. Boltz, 542

N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Second, before imposing Hayes’s sentences,

the court expressly noted that it considered “the appropriate rehabilitative plan for”

Hayes and services available in the community. In the end, the court determined

the totality of circumstances supported the State’s recommendation for prison.

Distilled down, Hayes is simply asking that we substitute the decision of the district

court with our own, which we cannot do. See State v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672,

677 (Iowa 2022).

Finding no abuse of discretion or defect in sentencing procedure, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.