State of Iowa v. Dustin Elliot Williams

CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
DecidedNovember 26, 2014
Docket14-0064
StatusPublished

This text of State of Iowa v. Dustin Elliot Williams (State of Iowa v. Dustin Elliot Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State of Iowa v. Dustin Elliot Williams, (iowactapp 2014).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0064 Filed November 26, 2014

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DUSTIN ELLIOT WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Odell G. McGhee,

District Associate Judge.

Appellant challenges his sentence for domestic abuse assault causing

bodily injury. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau,

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant

Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Shannon Archer,

Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ. 2

MCDONALD, J.

Dustin Williams appeals his sentence for domestic abuse assault causing

bodily injury, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(2)(b) (2011). The court

sentenced Williams to 180 days’ incarceration, with credit for forty-four days’ time

served. On appeal, Williams contends the district court abused its discretion in

imposing sentence because the “typical” sentence for a first conviction for this

offense is two days in jail. We conclude Williams has not established the court

abused its discretion in imposing a statutorily authorized sentence. See State v.

Privitt, 571 N.W.2d 484, 486 (Iowa 1997) (stating the defendant must establish

the court abused its discretion); State v. Floyd, 466 N.W.2d 919, 924 (Iowa Ct.

App. 1990) (stating the court’s sentence is cloaked with a strong presumption of

regularity). The sentence is affirmed without further opinion. See Iowa Ct. R.

21.26(1)(a) and (e).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Floyd
466 N.W.2d 919 (Court of Appeals of Iowa, 1990)
State v. Privitt
571 N.W.2d 484 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State of Iowa v. Dustin Elliot Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-dustin-elliot-williams-iowactapp-2014.