State of Iowa v. Shon Mathias Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 23-0245
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-0245 Filed August 30, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SHON MATHIAS JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Stuart P. Werling,

Judge.

The defendant appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea

to one count of failure to comply—verification violation, second or subsequent

violation as an habitual offender. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Michelle E. Rabe, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

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

General, for appellee.

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

GREER, Presiding Judge.

Shon Johnson appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea

to failure to comply—verification violation, second or subsequent violation as an

habitual offender, pursuant to Iowa Code section 692A.111(1) (2022). Johnson

contends that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to

consider mitigating factors and should have imposed supervised probation rather

than a prison sentence. Because we find that Johnson’s sentence was based on

reasonable grounds, there was no abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge and

we affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Pursuant to an agreement between the State and Johnson, Johnson pled

guilty to one count of failure to comply—verification violation, second or

subsequent violation as an habitual offender, which is a class “D” felony.1 In

exchange, the State dismissed two other charges against Johnson. The State

recommended a sentence of incarceration for Johnson, while Johnson requested

supervised probation. After considering several factors, the district court

sentenced Johnson to an indeterminate period of incarceration not to exceed

fifteen years, with a minimum of three years to be served prior to work release or

parole eligibility. Johnson appeals.2

1 Johnson also agreed to stipulate that he violated his probation in another case,

FECR417785. 2 While the right of appeal is limited for convictions following guilty pleas, there is

good cause for appeal when the challenge, as here, is to the sentence and not the guilty plea itself. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3); State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Iowa 2021). 3

II. Standard of Review.

We review the sentence imposed in a criminal case for correction of errors

at law. State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 103 (Iowa 2020). “We will not reverse

the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in

the sentencing procedure.” Id. (citation omitted).

III. Discussion.

“[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence within

the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and [it] will only

be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate

matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). “An abuse of

discretion will not be found unless we are able to discern that the decision was

exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.”

Id. “Our task on appeal is not to second-guess the sentencing court’s decision,”

but to ensure it was made based on permissible factors. Damme, 944 N.W.2d at

106.

Here, the district court considered many factors including “that this act of

violation was committed while [Johnson] was currently actively serving probation.”

The district court also noted that the presentence investigation (PSI) report “author

does recommend incarceration in this matter. The court believes that based on

the recommendation of the PSI author, based on the nature of the offense, and to

protect the public . . . incarceration is warranted in this matter.” In its sentencing

order, the district court also considered

the following factors, if applicable: the nature or length of the sentence imposed; [Johnson’s] application for court-appointed counsel, including the financial resources of [Johnson] including 4

income and assets; the fines, surcharges, penalties, and victim restitution already assessed; [his] earning ability; [his] dependents; [his] basic human needs; the hardship to the [Johnson] or [his] family; and any other factor relevant to this determination.

And although the district court listed these factors, Johnson still maintains that the

district court failed to consider appropriate mitigating evidence, such as his age,

health history and his mental health and disability status. But, the court considered

and relied on reasonable grounds when exercising its discretion and ordering

Johnson to serve a prison sentence: his history of convictions for failure to

comply—verification violation, including two that led the State to pursue a habitual

offender enhancement as part of this plea agreement; the fact he was on probation

for failure to comply—provide false information when committing the current

offense; the recommendation of the PSI author; that the underlying offense was a

sex offense; and the need to protect the community.

While Johnson argues that the district court should have offered him

supervised probation instead of a term of incarceration, the district court was not

required to do so and reached its determination based on a consideration of

appropriate matters and permissible factors. See State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590,

594 (Iowa 1983) (recognizing the right of the sentencing court “to balance the

relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence”). Given the strong

presumption in favor of a district court’s sentence and after a review of the record

made at sentencing, we find no abuse of discretion in the court’s reasoning or

defect in the sentencing procedure. 5

IV. Conclusion.

Because we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

imposing a term of incarceration rather than supervised probation, we affirm the

sentence.

AFFIRMED.