State of Iowa v. Johnny Weekley
This text of State of Iowa v. Johnny Weekley (State of Iowa v. Johnny Weekley) 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.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1121 Filed May 25, 2016
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JOHNNY WEEKLEY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Fayette County, John J.
Bauercamper, Judge.
The defendant appeals from his sentences for willful injury causing bodily
injury and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. SENTENCE
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ. 2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Johnny Weekley appeals from his sentences for willful injury causing
bodily injury and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury. Weekley
maintains the district court did not articulate adequate reasons for the sentences
on the record and the district court erred in assessing court costs to him for some
dismissed companion simple misdemeanor charges.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
Weekley was charged by trial information with willful injury causing serious
injury (count I) and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury (count II). He
reached a plea agreement with the State whereby the State would amend count I
to willful injury causing bodily injury and Weekley would enter guilty pleas for both
charges. As part of the agreement, Weekley would be subject to open
sentencing on count I and the State would recommend a term of incarceration
not to exceed seven days for count II. The district court accepted Weekley’s
guilty pleas in April 2015.
Weekley’s sentencing hearing took place in June 2015. At the hearing,
the State recommended the court impose a five-year prison sentence for count I
(willful injury) because it “was not [a] garden variety assault” and Weekley took
no responsibility, even though it cost the person he assaulted “several thousand
dollars in medical expenses” and several weeks of missed work due to a “broken
eye socket [and] cheekbone.” Additionally, the State noted that the preparer of
the presentence investigation (PSI) report “specifically rules out deferred
judgment as something she would like to see the court consider.” In response, 3
Weekley emphasized “the sheer absence of any other event of this nature” in his
past and asked the court to give him a deferred judgment on both counts
The court sentenced Weekley to a term of incarceration not to exceed five
years for count I and a term of seven days for count II. The sentences were
ordered to run concurrently. When pronouncing the sentence, the court stated:
The court deems the sentences to be appropriate due to the nature of the offense[,] the injuries suffered by the victims, [and] the facts and circumstances in the presentence investigation. Although the court disagrees with the recommendation, the court has relied on the facts, background facts, contained in the presentence investigation. The court does note the lack of prior criminal record.
Similarly, the court filed a written order and under the heading “reasons for
sentence” provided the following: “In pronouncing sentence, the court gave
special consideration to: the nature of the offenses, injury to the victim of Count I,
the defendant’s minimal prior record, and the background facts contained in the
presentence investigation.”
Weekley appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We will not reverse the sentence imposed by the district court “absent an
abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v.
Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
III. Discussion
A. Reasons on the Record
Weekley maintains the district court failed to state adequate reasons for
the sentence on the record. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d) (“The court shall
state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.”). He asserts 4
the district court provided only “boilerplate” reasons and asks us to remand for
resentencing. See State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 589 (Iowa 1980) (holding that
a sentence is to be vacated and remanded for resentencing when the trial court
failed to state reasons for the sentence imposed on the record).
Here, the record clearly indicates the court considered factors unique to
Weekley when imposing sentence. On the record, the court considered both an
aggravating factor—the severity of the resulting injury—as well as a mitigating
factor—Weekley’s lack of prior criminal record. Additionally, although the court
did not agree with the recommendation of the presentence investigator that
Weekley’s sentence on count I should be suspended, the court considered that
option as well as the other parts of the presentence report, including the history
of the incident and Weekley’s own background.
The court’s reasoning may have been terse and succinct, but it is
sufficient for us to review the court’s exercise of discretion. See State v.
Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 838 (Iowa 2010) (“A statement may be sufficient,
even if terse and succinct, so long as the brevity of the court’s statement does
not prevent review of the exercise of the trial court’s discretion.”), overruled on
other grounds by State v. Hill, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, 2016 WL 1612950, at *5
(Iowa 2016). Thus, we conclude the court provided sufficient reasons for
imposition of the challenged sentence.
B. Costs
Weekley maintains the district court erred by assessing him the court
costs associated with some dismissed companion simple misdemeanor charges. 5
The State concedes error on this point. We vacate the costs and remand for
entry of a corrected judgment.
IV. Conclusion
We affirm all of Weekley’s sentences except the costs for the dismissed
companion charges. We remand for entry of a corrected judgment.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Iowa v. Johnny Weekley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-johnny-weekley-iowactapp-2016.