State of Iowa v. Jay Robert Blank

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: March 29, 2023
• Docket: 22-0120
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0120 Filed March 29, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JAY ROBERT BLANK, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Christopher L. Bruns,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence for third-degree burglary. AFFIRMED.

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

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ. 2

TABOR, Presiding Judge.

A jury convicted Jay Blank of burglarizing Blake Taylor’s home. At Blank’s

sentencing hearing, he requested a suspended prison sentence of up to five years

with three years of supervised probation. The State asked the district court to

impose the indeterminate five-year prison sentence. Concerned by a contradiction

between Blank’s testimony and his statement to the presentence investigator, the

court adopted the State’s recommendation. Blank now claims the court’s focus,

solely on that inconsistency, requires resentencing. Because the record shows

the court considered other appropriate sentencing factors, we affirm.1

At trial, Taylor testified that he came home one afternoon to find his door

“partially opened.” Inside, he discovered holes in his walls and damage to a

memorial to his deceased father. His father’s ashes were “dumped out” and the

chest holding the cremains was punctured. Photos of his father were ripped off

the wall and glass picture frames were shattered. Blank admitted going to Taylor’s

home. But he claimed Taylor’s door was unlocked and he denied causing any

damage. The State also presented hostile text messages between Taylor and

Blank. When Taylor confronted Blank about the vandalism, Blank responded: “u

disrespect my sister ill disrespect your father.” Taylor had texted that he would

“piss on” Blank’s deceased sister’s grave.

After the jury’s guilty verdict, the court ordered a presentence investigation

(PSI) report. In his version of events, Blank told the PSI report’s author that “the

1 We review the sentencing order for the correction of legal error. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020). We will reverse if the prison term reveals an abuse of discretion or arises from a defect in the sentencing procedure. Id. (citing State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002)). 3

victim was ‘texting smack’ so he said he had it and went to the victim’s residence to

fight.” Blank said, “when he arrived, he entered the residence and the victim was not

there. He acknowledged doing some damage at the residence,” but said he didn’t steal

anything. The PSI report recommended a suspended sentence and three years of

supervised probation.

When it came time for sentencing, Blank endorsed the PSI report’s

recommendation. By constrast, the State urged that prison was appropriate

because of Blank’s callous actions in destroying the memorial for Taylor’s father.

The State also noted that Blank “acknowledged doing some damage” at Taylor’s

residence in the PSI report—contradicting his trial testimony.

The court sentenced Blank to five years in prison. And made a “short

thumbnail” addressing Blank’s contradictory statements:

I noted that your statements to the PSI [report], which you did not ask to correct, are not consistent with your sworn testimony at trial. I don’t know whether you weren’t telling us the straight story, but at one of those points in time you aren’t telling a straight story. . . . You appear to me to have a terrible attitude and not be a good subject for rehabilitation through street probation. And instead, I believe you need the shock of going to prison so that you can see what awaits you if you continue to commit criminal offenses, which is why I’m sentencing you to prison.

Blank now argues this “thumbnail” bore the entire weight of the district

court’s sentencing decision. He contends the court disregarded other factors, such

as his acceptance of responsibility, his commitment to seeking treatment, and a

successful deferred judgment. 2

2Blank received a deferred judgment on a drug offense in 2018 and successfully completed his probation in 2020. 4

We reject Blank’s argument. Starting from the top: a court’s “failure to

acknowledge a particular sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it

was not considered.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). And

upon digging deeper into the record, we find the district court did weigh other

factors. In choosing the sentence, the court considered “the maximum opportunity”

for Blank’s rehabilitation, protection of the community, the nature of his offense,

his prior convictions,3 his personal and family characteristics, the PSI report, and

the recommendations of the parties. See Iowa Code §§ 901.5, 907.5(1) (2022).

Among those factors, the court relied most on “the nature of this offense,” Blank’s

previous convictions, and the State’s recommendation—not his contradictory

statements.

We see no abuse of discretion in the sentencing decision. The court was

free to weigh Blank’s contradicting statements. See State v. Hickey,

No. 15-1397, 2016 WL 1366837, at *1–*2 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 6, 2016) (finding no

abuse of discretion where district court weighed the defendant’s dishonesty).

Beyond this reasoning, the court considered other appropriate sentencing factors.

See Iowa Code §§ 901.5, 907.5(1). Because the district court properly exercised

its discretion, we will not disturb Blank’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

3Blank had 2016 convictions for operating a vehicle while intoxicated, first offense, and for possessing a fake ID card.