State v. Summers

Supreme Court of Iowa

State v. Summers

219 N.W.2d 26, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1352

CourtSupreme Court of Iowa

DecidedJune 26, 1974

Docket56454

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 219 N.W.2d 26 (State v. Summers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Summers, 219 N.W.2d 26, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1352 (iowa 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals judgment on guilty plea to the crime of embezzlement in violation of Code section 710.5. He asserts, (1) the county attorney’s statements concerning his arrest for another offense during the presentence investigation period constituted reversible error, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence.

Defendant made no objection to the county attorney’s, statement and attempted to explain to the trial court the reason for his arrest. Defendant’s first assigned error claimed for the first time on appeal cannot be effectively asserted. State v. Cooper, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 589, 592; State v. Wisher, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 618, 620. It must be noted, however, a trial court may consider any information about an accused derived from events prior or subsequent to the crime for which sentence is to be pronounced. State v. Stakenburg, Iowa, 215 N.W.2d 265, 267; State v. Myers, 241 Iowa 670, 672, 42 N.W.2d 79, 80 and citations.

If a sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, this court will inter *27 fere only where an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Russell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356; State v. Voshell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 309, 310. The presentence investigation report showed defendant’s prior difficulties with the law. Following a California felony conviction he came to Iowa in violation of a probation order. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

The trial court judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals judgment on guilty plea to the crime of embezzlement in violation of Code section 710.5. He asserts, (1) the county attorney’s statements concerning his arrest for another offense during the presentence investigation period constituted reversible error, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the maximum sentence.

Defendant made no objection to the county attorney’s, statement and attempted to explain to the trial court the reason for his arrest. Defendant’s first assigned error claimed for the first time on appeal cannot be effectively asserted. State v. Cooper, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 589, 592; State v. Wisher, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 618, 620. It must be noted, however, a trial court may consider any information about an accused derived from events prior or subsequent to the crime for which sentence is to be pronounced. State v. Stakenburg, Iowa, 215 N.W.2d 265, 267; State v. Myers, 241 Iowa 670, 672, 42 N.W.2d 79, 80 and citations.

If a sentence does not exceed the statutory maximum, this court will inter *27 fere only where an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Russell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 355, 356; State v. Voshell, Iowa, 216 N.W.2d 309, 310. The presentence investigation report showed defendant’s prior difficulties with the law. Following a California felony conviction he came to Iowa in violation of a probation order. We find no abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

The trial court judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 N.W.2d 26, 1974 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-summers-iowa-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack