State of Iowa v. David Daniel Gordon

• Court: Supreme Court of Iowa
• Decided: December 15, 2023
• Docket: 22-1062
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 22–1062

Submitted November 16, 2023—Filed December 15, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Appellee,

vs.

DAVID DANIEL GORDON,

Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, James M.

Drew, Senior Judge.

A defendant challenges a sentencing court’s rejection of his request for a

deferred judgment in his initial sentencing and upon the sentencing court’s

reconsideration of the sentence. JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; WRIT

ANNULLED. McDermott, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices join.

Karmen R. Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee. 2

MCDERMOTT, Justice. The law equips judges with an array of options when sentencing the guilty.

Under one such option, a sentencing judge within one year of having sentenced

someone to prison may resentence the person. This strategy allows the judge to

modify a sentence after the guilty party has served some weeks or months incar-

cerated and thus permits what is sometimes referred to as “shock” probation—

probation granted after a brief stay in prison intended to rouse the defendant to

the prospect of a longer confinement if misbehavior continues. The question pre-

sented in this case is whether the statute that authorizes judges to resentence

defendants permits the judge to defer judgment, which would undo not only the

prior sentence but also the underlying adjudication of guilt.

I.

The State charged seventeen-year-old David Gordon with robbery in the

first degree under Iowa Code § 711.2 (2021), a class “B” felony, and willful injury

resulting in serious injury under § 708.4(1), a class “C” felony. Gordon pleaded

guilty to amended charges of theft in the first degree under Iowa Code § 714.2(1),

a class “C” felony, and willful injury resulting in bodily injury under § 708.4(2),

a class “D” felony. In his plea, Gordon stated that he cut the victim with a knife to assault him and cause pain and was aware that this could result in a serious

injury, either by causing permanent disfigurement or by endangering his life.

Gordon also stated that he removed a cell phone from the victim’s pocket and

later threw it into a ditch.

The plea agreement left the parties free to argue about the sentence.

Gordon argued for a deferred judgment, emphasizing his relative youth, his lack

of criminal history, the death of his father a few years earlier, and recent efforts

at rehabilitation. The State argued for a prison term of ten years for the theft conviction and five years for the willful injury conviction to be served 3

consecutively, emphasizing that Gordon stabbed the victim multiple times,

necessitating a medical operation.

The district court sentenced Gordon to ten years in prison for the theft

conviction and five years for the assault conviction with the sentences to run

concurrently. The district court recited as considerations in its sentence

Gordon’s age, attitude, lack of a prior criminal record, employment status, family

circumstances, the nature of the offense, the information in the presentence

investigation report, and the need for deterrence.

Gordon appealed the sentence but also filed a motion with the district

court requesting reconsideration of the sentence under Iowa Code § 902.4. The

district court held a hearing on the motion several months later. At the hearing,

Gordon again argued for a deferred judgment. The State resisted any reconsid-

eration of the sentence.

The district court initially announced that it would resentence Gordon to

a deferred judgment. The State responded by discussing an unpublished opinion

in which the court of appeals held that courts lack authority to grant a deferred

judgment when reconsidering a sentence under § 902.4. See State v. Giunta,

No. 15–1867, 2016 WL 2743454, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 11, 2016). Gordon argued that the statute’s language granted the power to impose a deferred judg-

ment.

The judge recessed briefly to review the court of appeals opinion, and upon

his return stated:

I’m going to have to reverse everything I’ve said and suspend your sentence. . . . [I]f the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals says that I do, in fact, have the authority to grant you a deferred, they’ll remand it and I will do that. That would be what I would do if that option were available to me. . . .

So I am going to simply reconsider your sentence, place you on probation as I previously described. 4

The district court imposed the same sentence as before but suspended the sen-

tence and placed Gordon on probation for up to five years.

Gordon filed a petition for writ of certiorari challenging his resentence. The

State resisted. Gordon also filed an application to extend the briefing deadline in

his pending appeal and requested to stay those proceedings until the resolution

of the writ of certiorari. We granted the writ of certiorari but denied the request

to stay the pending appeal and instead consolidated the appeals.

II.

Gordon presents two arguments on appeal. He first argues that the district

court abused its discretion by not granting him a deferred judgment in its initial

sentencing. He alternatively argues that the district court abused its discretion

when resentencing him by erroneously concluding that it lacked authority under

§ 902.4 to defer judgment.

A.

We presume that a sentence within the statutory limits is valid and to

overturn it the defendant must show that the district court abused its discretion

or relied on inappropriate factors. State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa

2015). A district court abuses its discretion when the sentence is based on grounds that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Gordon, 921

N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018).

Gordon argues that the court failed to properly consider multiple factors

at his initial sentencing when the court refused to defer judgment. He contends

that the district court failed to give sufficient weight to his age (seventeen at the

time he committed the crimes and eighteen at sentencing) and how his immatu-

rity caused him to fail to appreciate the risks and consequences of his actions.

Gordon argues that the court failed to appreciate the nature of the crime and how it stemmed from an altercation between teenagers. He likewise asserts that 5

the court insufficiently considered the effect his father’s recent death has had on

his life and development. Gordon further recites that the presentence investiga-

tion report showed no prior history of violence or dangerous behavior and, on

the contrary, showed that he’d recently graduated from high school and held a

steady job. And he argues that the district court failed to appreciate his good

behavior and acceptance of responsibility for his actions displayed in the year

since the crime before his sentencing.

A sentencing court must determine which sentencing option “is authorized

by law for the offense” and “which of them or which combination of them, in the

discretion of the court, will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation

of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses

by the defendant and others.” Iowa Code § 901.5. When determining the appro-

priate sentence, the court must consider “the nature of the offense, the attending

circumstances, the age, character and propensity of the offender, and the

chances of reform.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002).

We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to grant

Gordon’s request for a deferred judgment at his initial sentencing. The district

court adequately explained—at some length—its consideration and weighing of each of the factors that Gordon points to. But it also discussed factors that, in

its view, cut against a deferred judgment. It noted that the presentence

investigation report included a recommendation from the department of

correctional services that Gordon receive a sentence of incarceration. The district

court examined closely the nature of the offense, which it described as involving

“serious violence and the use of a weapon.” The district court elaborated:

[D]espite the fact that you were a juvenile when this was committed, this -- your actions strike me as -- I guess bizarre is the word that I want to use to describe them. Almost inexplicable. And, frankly, that causes me to wonder whether you’re dangerous. You might not be, 6

but your actions on this occasion indicate that you have serious de- ficiencies regarding impulse control. Granted, you’re a young man. That can be related to that. But this was really quite shocking what you did. When you involve a weapon and you intend to cause serious injury to another human being, that sends a signal that you very well might be a dangerous person . . . .

I readily admit that this is not an easy sentencing decision and -- mostly because of your age and also because of the excellent arguments that Mr. Taylor has made on your behalf. But I’m not convinced in my mind that you understand just how serious this is. We’ve got a weapon. We’ve got the use of that weapon against an- other individual with the intent to cause serious injury.

The record makes clear that the district court considered and weighed the

arguments for and against a deferred judgment and thoroughly explained its

reasoning for the sentence imposed. The test for whether a sentencing court

abused its discretion is not whether we might have weighed the various factors

differently. “[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the

district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable

grounds.” Id. We find no evidence that the sentence was based on grounds that

were untenable or unreasonable and thus find no abuse of discretion in the dis-

trict court’s initial sentence.

B.

We turn to Gordon’s argument that the district court abused its discretion when resentencing him by erroneously concluding that it lacked authority to

grant a deferred judgment. Authority for a sentencing judge to reconsider a

felon’s sentence in certain cases appears in Iowa Code § 902.4. It states in rele-

vant part:

For a period of one year from the date when a person convicted of a felony, other than a class “A” or class “B” felony, begins to serve a sentence of confinement, the court, on its own motion or on the recommendation of the director of the Iowa department of correc- tions, may order the person to be returned to the court, at which time the court may review its previous action and reaffirm it or sub- stitute for it any sentence permitted by law. 7

Iowa Code § 902.4.

Gordon argues that a deferred judgment constitutes a “sentence” and thus

the district court could substitute a deferred judgment for its initial sentence

under this statute. In support of his argument, Gordon directs us to the defini-

tion of deferred judgment: “a sentencing option whereby both the adjudication

of guilt and the imposition of a sentence are deferred by the court.” Id. § 907.1(1).

Gordon highlights that the statutory definition refers to deferred judgments as

“a sentencing option” and argues that this places them within the “any sentence”

language in § 902.4. Id. § 902.4; id. § 907.1(1).

But a deferred judgment involves more than a sentence. We consider the

entire statute when determining its meaning, “not just isolated words and

phrases.” Story Cnty. Wind, LLC v. Story Cnty. Bd. of Rev., 990 N.W.2d 282, 286

(Iowa 2023) (quoting In re J.C., 857 N.W.2d 495, 500 (Iowa 2014)). The language

in the definition of a deferred judgment that follows the portion that Gordon

highlights states that a deferred judgment is “a sentencing option whereby both

the adjudication of guilt and the imposition of a sentence are deferred by the

court.” Iowa Code § 907.1(1) (emphasis added). The definition identifies two fun-

damental features of a deferred judgment: (1) deferring a judgment adjudicating guilt, and (2) deferring a sentence. Id. These dual components are referenced

again in a second sentence in the definition, which states: “The court retains the

power to pronounce judgment and impose sentence subject to the defendant’s

compliance with conditions set by the court as a requirement of the deferred

judgment.” Id. (emphasis added). An obvious clue that a deferred judgment in-

volves more than a sentence appears on the face of the term: deferred judgment.

Text elsewhere in the criminal code supports a reading that distinguishes

a judgment adjudicating guilt from a sentence. See State v. Richardson, 890 N.W.2d 609, 618 (Iowa 2017) (noting “how the phrase . . . is used elsewhere in 8

the Iowa Code” can serve as an interpretive tool). In a listing of judgment and

sentencing powers in § 901.5, the Code (describing the resentencing authority

in § 902.4) states: “The court may pronounce judgment and sentence the de-

fendant to confinement and then reconsider the sentence as provided by section

902.4 . . . .” Iowa Code § 901.5(6). So after mentioning both acts—“pronounce

judgment and sentence the defendant”—this statute (like § 902.4 itself) specifies

that the reconsideration power applies only to one of them: “the sentence.” Id.

What’s more, a different provision in the criminal code that the legislature re-

cently rescinded, § 901.5A(1), likewise addressed resentencing within the first

year of a defendant’s confinement for certain crimes. Id. § 901.5A(1) (repealed

July 1, 2023). Unlike § 902.4, the text of § 901.5A(1) stated that a defendant

“may have the judgment and sentence entered under [the particular felony stat-

ute] reopened for resentencing.” Id. (emphasis added). This language suggests

that when the legislature intends to grant reconsideration power over both judg-

ment and sentence, it says so in the statute. As a final matter, even Gordon’s

main textual argument—highlighting in the definition of deferred judgment the

phrase “a sentencing option,” id. § 907.1(1)—offers marginal persuasive potency;

a sentence and a sentencing option connote different things. Gordon argues that two of our prior cases, State v. Broten, 295 N.W.2d 453

(Iowa 1980), and State v. Iowa District Court, 572 N.W.2d 587 (Iowa 1997), leave

open the possibility that a court may defer judgment when reconsidering a sen-

tence. We disagree. In Broten, the district court suspended a sentence for a for-

cible felony on reconsideration despite a statute that prohibited suspended sen-

tences for forcible felony convictions. 295 N.W.2d at 454. Because § 902.4 au-

thorizes on reconsideration only sentences permitted at the initial sentencing,

we held that the court erred in granting the suspended sentence since it could not have imposed it initially. Id. at 455. And in Iowa District Court, we addressed 9

whether the sentencing court could consider a suspended sentence under

§ 902.4 when the defendant had not actually begun to serve the term of confine-

ment. 572 N.W.2d at 587–88. This issue isn’t presented here since Gordon was

incarcerated before his resentencing. Neither case involved the imposition of a

deferred judgment and neither case reached the question of whether a deferred

judgment is a “sentence” for purposes of § 902.4 to permit its substitution.

“An adjudication of guilt is a judicial declaration of the defendant’s legal

guilt of the offense charged.” State v. Farmer, 234 N.W.2d 89, 92 (Iowa 1975).

But with a deferred judgment, the court enters no adjudication of guilt and im-

poses no sentence. Iowa Code § 901.5(1); id. § 907.3(1)(a). The defendant instead

is placed on probation. Id. § 907.3(1)(a). If the defendant successfully completes

the probation, the defendant is discharged, no judgment or sentence is entered

or imposed, and the court’s criminal record in the case is expunged. Id. §§

907.3(1)(c), 907.9(4)(b). If the defendant fails to complete the probation, the court

may revoke the probation, enter judgment, and sentence the defendant. Id. §

907.3(1)(b). A deferred judgment is not a “final judgment” providing a right of

direct appeal. State v. Stessman, 460 N.W.2d 461, 462–63 (Iowa 1990).

There must be an adjudication of guilt before the imposition of a criminal sentence. Farmer, 234 N.W.2d at 92. It’s undisputed that the district court

adjudicated Gordon guilty before imposing its initial sentence. The omission of

language in § 902.4 granting the district court power to reconsider its earlier

judgment adjudicating guilt prevents it from deferring judgment since a deferred

judgment would necessarily undo both the previously imposed judgment and

sentence. The district court correctly interpreted its authority under § 902.4

when it determined that it could not defer judgment when reconsidering

Gordon’s sentence. As a result, Gordon’s argument that the district court abused its discretion must fail. 10

We thus affirm Gordon’s conviction and sentence and annul the writ of

certiorari.

JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED; WRIT ANNULLED.