State of Iowa v. Jeffry Robert Jensen

Citation: Not availableDocket: 15-2172

Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa; October 12, 2016; Iowa; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Jeffry Robert Jensen appeals his sentencing, arguing that the State breached the plea agreement by recommending consecutive sentences instead of time served for two of his convictions, and that the district court failed to provide explicit reasons for the consecutive sentences. Jensen claims ineffective assistance of counsel since his attorney did not object to the State’s recommendation. The court found no merit in Jensen's first claim, stating the prosecutor honored the plea agreement, although the court was not bound to follow the recommendation. Regarding the second claim, the court referenced the new precedent from *State v. Hill*, necessitating the vacation of the consecutive sentences and remanding for a new sentencing hearing. Jensen had committed multiple offenses, including operating a vehicle without owner consent and possession of methamphetamine, with a plea agreement that allowed for open sentencing. The State recommended a jail sentence equal to time served for the misdemeanors but requested that all sentences run consecutively due to Jensen's extensive criminal history and previous failures to appear in court. Jensen's defense highlighted his age and familial responsibilities, attributing his criminal behavior to methamphetamine use. The court ultimately affirmed the convictions but vacated part of the sentence and ordered resentencing.

Defense counsel requested a probationary sentence for Jensen to facilitate his involvement with his children. Jensen acknowledged his mistakes in court, expressing remorse and a desire to be with his kids. The district court imposed sentences based on the need for Jensen's rehabilitation and public safety, detailing the following: for operating without owner’s consent (FECR146402), an indeterminate term not exceeding two years and a $625 fine; for second-degree theft (FECR146543), up to five years and a $750 fine; for criminal transmission of a contagious disease (FECR147097), one year in county jail and a $315 fine; and for possession of methamphetamine (FECR148302), one year in jail and a $315 fine. All fines and surcharges were suspended, but the incarceration terms were not. The sentences are to run consecutively, totaling nine years, with credit for time served. The court emphasized that the sentence was not vindictive but a consequence of Jensen's actions.

Jensen is now contesting the consecutive sentences. As his counsel did not object to the State's recommendation during sentencing, he failed to preserve the error for appeal and must claim ineffective assistance of counsel to pursue the issue. The review of this claim will be de novo. If the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, Jensen's counsel was obligated to object. Prejudice is presumed if no objection was made. The district court's sentencing is reviewed for abuse of discretion, defined as decisions made on unreasonable grounds or unsupported by substantial evidence. Jensen contends that the State breached its plea agreement by discussing serious misdemeanor sentences while referencing his time served on related offenses.

The prosecutor requested that Jensen be sentenced to a specific number of days, with those jail sentences running concurrently but consecutively to the sentences for other charges related to a stolen vehicle and operating without owner’s consent. Jensen claimed the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by not supporting a recommendation for time served and instead asking for consecutive sentences. However, the record indicated the prosecutor adhered to the plea agreement by recommending time served for serious misdemeanors while asking for a total of seven years for other charges. The plea agreements allowed for consecutive sentences, and nothing prevented the prosecutor from requesting the terms to start at sentencing.

Jensen argued that the court erred by not following the plea agreements, but the agreements specified that guilty pleas were not contingent on the court's acceptance of sentencing concessions, allowing the court discretion in sentencing. Consequently, defense counsel had no obligation to object at sentencing.

The district court did not explicitly provide reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, which is now required following a recent ruling in Hill that mandates sentencing courts to clearly state their reasons for consecutive terms. Since the court did not link its reasons for incarceration to the decision for consecutive sentences, this part of the sentence was vacated. The case was remanded for the district court to determine whether the sentences should run consecutively or concurrently and to articulate the reasons for its decision. The convictions were affirmed, but the sentence was vacated in part and remanded for resentencing.