IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-2031 Filed January 23, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEREMY EVERETT GOODALE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Shawn Showers,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to first-degree
murder. AFFIRMED.
Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Jeremy Everett Goodale appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to
first-degree murder. Goodale was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Because
we find the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In mid-October 2021, Goodale’s co-defendant approached Goodale and
asked if he would help murder his Spanish teacher after receiving a failing grade
in her class. Goodale agreed. The two surveilled the teacher over the next two
weeks to learn her routine, discovering that she regularly took walks in a nearby
park. Goodale and his co-defendant planned to attack her during her walk. On
the afternoon of November 2, Goodale and his co-defendant followed the teacher
as she walked along the trail. When they came upon her, Goodale and his
co-defendant took turns beating her with a baseball bat. Goodale later confessed
that he “caved her skull in with the bat and dragged her [corpse] off the trail.”
Afterwards, Goodale and his co-defendant wheeled the body around in a
wheelbarrow and hid the body under a tarp because the ground was too frozen for
burial. They cleaned off the baseball bat, and Goodale planned to return to the
scene later to wipe down the car because there were also “[p]robably some prints”
left behind. A friend of Goodale’s reported the incident to law enforcement after
Goodale bragged to him about the killing. Goodale told the friend that he killed the
teacher because she “failed the wrong students.”
The State charged Goodale with first-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit a forcible felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Goodale pled guilty to 3
first‐degree murder. The district court accepted his plea and dismissed the
remaining count.
A two-day sentencing hearing was held in November 2023. Several
witnesses testified, including investigating law enforcement officials and members
of Goodale’s family. Goodale also retained an expert, a board-certified clinical and
forensic psychologist who testified to Goodale’s high likelihood of rehabilitation.
The court sentenced Goodale to life in prison with the possibility of parole after
twenty-five years. Goodale appeals.1
II. Review.
“We review for an ‘abuse of discretion,’ our most deferential standard, ‘if the
sentence is within the statutory limits.’” State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137
(Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion may exist if the sentencing
court fails to consider a factor, gives significant weight to an improper factor, or
arrives at a conclusion that is against the facts.” State v. Majors,
940 N.W.2d 372, 387 (Iowa 2020). “But if the court follows our outlined sentencing
procedure by conducting an individualized hearing, applies the Miller/Lyle/Roby
factors, and imposes a sentence authorized by statute and supported by the
evidence, then we affirm the sentence.” Id. (discussing the three seminal cases in
mandatory-minimum sentences for juvenile offenders).
1 Generally, a defendant does not have a right to appeal after pleading guilty. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2024). But two exceptions apply: when a defendant pleads guilty to a class “A” felony and if the defendant establishes good cause. Id. § 814.6(1)(a)(3). Both exceptions apply here. Goodale pled guilty to first-degree murder, which is a class “A” felony. See id. § 707.2(2) (designating first-degree murder as a class “A” felony). He is also challenging his “sentence rather than the guilty plea” and therefore has good cause to pursue this appeal. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). 4
III. Discussion.
Goodale contends the district court abused its discretion when sentencing
him because it failed to consider certain factors specifically afforded to juveniles
and imposed a mandatory minimum term.2 “[T]he sentencing court must consider
the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors in an individualized sentencing hearing if it is
contemplating imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on a juvenile offender.”
Id. at 386. Only “after a complete and careful consideration of the relevant
mitigating factors of youth” may the court impose a minimum term of incarceration.
Id. (citation omitted). But when it does determine such a minimum term is
necessary, we give the sentencing court considerable deference. See id. at 387
(“We trust the sentencing courts to know, after applying the factors, when a
mandatory minimum term of incarceration for juvenile offenders is warranted.”).
The court is required to consider several factors in determining whether a
mandatory minimum term is appropriate:
(1) The age of the offender and the features of youthful behavior, such as “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences”; (2) The particular “family and home environment” that surround the youth; (3) The circumstances of the particular crime and all circumstances relating to youth that may have played a role in the commission of the crime; (4) The challenges for youthful offenders in navigating through the criminal process; and (5) The possibility of rehabilitation and the capacity for change.
2 Goodale also claims that the sentencing court did not exercise any discretion at
all and simply imposed a mandatory minimum sentence. But we do not find that this is supported by the record. The court conducted a painstaking, careful review of the case before imposing a minimum sentence and noted its requirement to consider the factors specified for juvenile offenders when exercising its discretion. We therefore find this argument without merit. 5
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014) (cleaned up) (citations
omitted); accord Iowa Code § 902.1(2)(b)(2)(a)–(v) (requiring the court to consider
certain factors when sentencing a juvenile offender).
Upon our own review of the record, we find the court thoroughly considered
each of these factors when sentencing Goodale. While the court recognized that
Goodale “did not fully appreciate the consequences of his actions” and was
influenced by his co-defendant, it also noted that he “was a bright student and
intelligent teenager” who “could have stopped this from happening.” The court also
considered his home life, noting that while his relationship with his mother was
strained, Goodale has “a caring father and involved siblings.” In terms of the crime
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-2031 Filed January 23, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JEREMY EVERETT GOODALE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jefferson County, Shawn Showers,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to first-degree
murder. AFFIRMED.
Denise M. Gonyea of McKelvie Law Office, Grinnell, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. 2
CHICCHELLY, Judge.
Jeremy Everett Goodale appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to
first-degree murder. Goodale was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Because
we find the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
In mid-October 2021, Goodale’s co-defendant approached Goodale and
asked if he would help murder his Spanish teacher after receiving a failing grade
in her class. Goodale agreed. The two surveilled the teacher over the next two
weeks to learn her routine, discovering that she regularly took walks in a nearby
park. Goodale and his co-defendant planned to attack her during her walk. On
the afternoon of November 2, Goodale and his co-defendant followed the teacher
as she walked along the trail. When they came upon her, Goodale and his
co-defendant took turns beating her with a baseball bat. Goodale later confessed
that he “caved her skull in with the bat and dragged her [corpse] off the trail.”
Afterwards, Goodale and his co-defendant wheeled the body around in a
wheelbarrow and hid the body under a tarp because the ground was too frozen for
burial. They cleaned off the baseball bat, and Goodale planned to return to the
scene later to wipe down the car because there were also “[p]robably some prints”
left behind. A friend of Goodale’s reported the incident to law enforcement after
Goodale bragged to him about the killing. Goodale told the friend that he killed the
teacher because she “failed the wrong students.”
The State charged Goodale with first-degree murder and conspiracy to
commit a forcible felony. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Goodale pled guilty to 3
first‐degree murder. The district court accepted his plea and dismissed the
remaining count.
A two-day sentencing hearing was held in November 2023. Several
witnesses testified, including investigating law enforcement officials and members
of Goodale’s family. Goodale also retained an expert, a board-certified clinical and
forensic psychologist who testified to Goodale’s high likelihood of rehabilitation.
The court sentenced Goodale to life in prison with the possibility of parole after
twenty-five years. Goodale appeals.1
II. Review.
“We review for an ‘abuse of discretion,’ our most deferential standard, ‘if the
sentence is within the statutory limits.’” State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137
(Iowa 2017) (citation omitted). “An abuse of discretion may exist if the sentencing
court fails to consider a factor, gives significant weight to an improper factor, or
arrives at a conclusion that is against the facts.” State v. Majors,
940 N.W.2d 372, 387 (Iowa 2020). “But if the court follows our outlined sentencing
procedure by conducting an individualized hearing, applies the Miller/Lyle/Roby
factors, and imposes a sentence authorized by statute and supported by the
evidence, then we affirm the sentence.” Id. (discussing the three seminal cases in
mandatory-minimum sentences for juvenile offenders).
1 Generally, a defendant does not have a right to appeal after pleading guilty. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2024). But two exceptions apply: when a defendant pleads guilty to a class “A” felony and if the defendant establishes good cause. Id. § 814.6(1)(a)(3). Both exceptions apply here. Goodale pled guilty to first-degree murder, which is a class “A” felony. See id. § 707.2(2) (designating first-degree murder as a class “A” felony). He is also challenging his “sentence rather than the guilty plea” and therefore has good cause to pursue this appeal. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). 4
III. Discussion.
Goodale contends the district court abused its discretion when sentencing
him because it failed to consider certain factors specifically afforded to juveniles
and imposed a mandatory minimum term.2 “[T]he sentencing court must consider
the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors in an individualized sentencing hearing if it is
contemplating imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on a juvenile offender.”
Id. at 386. Only “after a complete and careful consideration of the relevant
mitigating factors of youth” may the court impose a minimum term of incarceration.
Id. (citation omitted). But when it does determine such a minimum term is
necessary, we give the sentencing court considerable deference. See id. at 387
(“We trust the sentencing courts to know, after applying the factors, when a
mandatory minimum term of incarceration for juvenile offenders is warranted.”).
The court is required to consider several factors in determining whether a
mandatory minimum term is appropriate:
(1) The age of the offender and the features of youthful behavior, such as “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences”; (2) The particular “family and home environment” that surround the youth; (3) The circumstances of the particular crime and all circumstances relating to youth that may have played a role in the commission of the crime; (4) The challenges for youthful offenders in navigating through the criminal process; and (5) The possibility of rehabilitation and the capacity for change.
2 Goodale also claims that the sentencing court did not exercise any discretion at
all and simply imposed a mandatory minimum sentence. But we do not find that this is supported by the record. The court conducted a painstaking, careful review of the case before imposing a minimum sentence and noted its requirement to consider the factors specified for juvenile offenders when exercising its discretion. We therefore find this argument without merit. 5
State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014) (cleaned up) (citations
omitted); accord Iowa Code § 902.1(2)(b)(2)(a)–(v) (requiring the court to consider
certain factors when sentencing a juvenile offender).
Upon our own review of the record, we find the court thoroughly considered
each of these factors when sentencing Goodale. While the court recognized that
Goodale “did not fully appreciate the consequences of his actions” and was
influenced by his co-defendant, it also noted that he “was a bright student and
intelligent teenager” who “could have stopped this from happening.” The court also
considered his home life, noting that while his relationship with his mother was
strained, Goodale has “a caring father and involved siblings.” In terms of the crime
itself, the court found it was “cruel” and “as heinous of a murder as can be
imagined,” and that brutality was “a significant aggravating factor.” But despite the
seriousness of the charges and Goodale’s inexperience with the legal system, he
had zealous advocacy and was “able to assist in his defense.” Finally, Goodale
was considered “a very good candidate for rehabilitation” if he is “able to take
advantage of the programming and education in the Iowa prison system.”
While the court found many of the Lyle factors mitigating, it determined that
its imposed sentence “balances the heinous criminal act of the defendant and loss
of precious life with the required mitigating factors that juveniles are given under
the law at sentencing.” The court went on further, explaining why a minimum term
was so necessary here. Based on the egregiousness of the crime, where “[t]he
victim was stalked and struck repeatedly with a baseball bat” over a poor grade,
the court stated this was not “a typical juvenile [murder] case. This is beyond the 6
pale.” “Some juveniles will deserve mandatory minimum imprisonment,” and this
does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d at 403; accord Roby,
897 N.W.2d at 141, 143 (expressly “limit[ing] our holding in Lyle to statutorily
imposed minimums,” not “forbid[ding] the court from imposing a minimum
sentence”). “The court did not overlook relevant factors that should have been
given significant weight, did not consider any improper factors, and did not commit
a serious error in judgment.” State v. Deng, No. 22-2079, 2024 WL 1295606, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 27, 2024). We therefore find no abuse of discretion by the
court in its consideration of the relevant factors.
Finally, Goodale argues that the sentencing court abused its discretion by
contradicting Iowa law and imposing a mandatory minimum because the Iowa
Board of Parole was in the best position to determine Goodale’s sentence. But the
Board of Parole does not have authority or discretion to impose sentences; the
sentencing court does. See Iowa Code §§ 904A.4(1) (permitting the Board of
Parole to “interview and consider inmates for parole”), 901.5 (permitting the court
to “pronounce judgment” and determine appropriate sentencing options for
convicted offenders). Further, the sentencing court imposed a sentence that falls
within the statutory requirements. See id. § 902.1(2)(a)(1)–(3) (permitting the court
to impose either a life sentence “with no possibility of parole,” “the possibility of
parole after serving a minimum term of confinement,” or parole eligibility with no
minimum term for juvenile offenders convicted of first-degree murder). To the
extent that Goodale argues that Iowa caselaw is changing and asks us to reverse
such precedent, we lack the authority. See State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56, 64 (Iowa
Ct. App. 2014) (“We are not at liberty to overrule controlling supreme court 7
precedent.”). We similarly cannot take the place of the legislature and revise the
statute. See State v. Hauge, 973 N.W.2d 453, 466 (Iowa 2022) (“leav[ing] policy
decisions to the legislature” because the role of the courts is “to interpret the Iowa
Constitution” (citation omitted)). Accordingly, we must affirm.
IV. Disposition.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing
Goodale, we affirm his sentence.
AFFIRMED.