State of Iowa v. James Troy Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: January 9, 2025
• Docket: 24-0369
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0369 Filed January 9, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAMES TROY JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County,

Kimberly K. Shepherd, Judge.

James Troy Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

after pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance, third or subsequent

offense. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2

CHICCHELLY, Judge.

James Troy Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court

after pleading guilty to possession of a controlled substance, third or subsequent

offense. He contends the court abused its discretion when sentencing him by

failing to consider alternative sentencing. Because we find no abuse of discretion,

we affirm the sentence.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

On October 11, 2023, the Clinton County Police Department arrested

Johnson on an active warrant. While arresting him, the officers searched

Johnson’s pockets and discovered two pills of alprazolam, which is a controlled

substance. See Iowa Code § 124.210(3)(a) (2023) (designating alprazolam as a

schedule IV controlled substance). The State charged Johnson with possession

of a controlled substance, third or subsequent offence. Johnson pled guilty to the

charge. The court accepted his guilty plea and ordered a presentence

investigation report (PSI).

At the sentencing hearing, the State requested the court follow the

sentencing recommendation in the PSI, which recommended incarceration. In

response, Johnson requested probation with a recommendation for treatment.

The court sentenced Johnson to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to

exceed fifteen years with a three-year mandatory minimum sentence. Johnson

appeals.

II. Review.

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

v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020). The sentencing court has “broad 3

discretion to impose the sentence it determines is best suited to rehabilitate a

defendant and protect society.” State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355

(Iowa 2022). This discretion “to impose a particular sentence within the statutory

limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor” and we will only reverse for

an abuse of discretion. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).

III. Sentencing Discretion.

The sentencing court weighs “the nature of the offense, the attending

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

of reform” against the societal goals of sentencing. Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 106

(citation omitted). Johnson argues the district court abused its sentencing

discretion by failing to consider probation as a sentencing option. But this is

incorrect. The court expressly stated its reasoning for imposing prison rather than

a suspended sentence:

Here’s the problem, Mr. Johnson. I put you on supervised probation under the belief that you were serious about taking steps to improve your life, to make yourself a productive member of this community, to take advantage of possible community treatment options, and you didn’t do any of those things. Instead, you committed a new crime. So that’s why we’re here today. You’ve already had an opportunity at community-based corrections. You chose not to take advantage of that opportunity. So what you’re saying today are words, same as what you said to me the last time I sentenced you. So it’s time now. You’ve made the choice. You’ve walked the path right towards prison, so that’s what’s going to happen today.

While Johnson requested probation, the court’s consideration of proper factors “will

not always lead to the same sentence. Yet, this does not mean the choice of one

particular sentencing option over another constitutes error.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d

at 725. Rather, it reflects the discretionary nature of sentencing. Id. Johnson fails 4

to explain how the court “relie[d] on impermissible factors” when sentencing. West

Vangen, 975 N.W.2d at 355. We therefore find no abuse of discretion and affirm

his sentence.

IV. Disposition.

Because we find the district court did not abuse its discretion when

sentencing Johnson, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.