Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appeal by a defendant following guilty pleas to charges including theft of a motor vehicle, criminal mischief, and lascivious acts with a child. The defendant initially received deferred judgments and probation, but a subsequent guilty plea violated his probation, resulting in revoked probation and imposed prison sentences. On appeal, several issues were raised, including the use of risk assessment tools in the presentence investigation (PSI) report, the sentencing recommendations, and discrepancies in orders regarding attorney fees and restitution for victim counseling. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to preserve many issues for appeal due to a lack of objections at trial. The Iowa Supreme Court confirmed the statutory authorization of risk assessment tools under Iowa Code section 901.5, despite acknowledging concerns about their validity. The court ruled that PSI recommendations are not binding and upheld the district court's discretion in their use. The court remanded the case to correct the inconsistency between oral and written orders on attorney fees, affirming that the oral pronouncement should prevail. Lastly, the court maintained that restitution for victim counseling should be directly related to the crime and subject to contestation if excessive. The sentencing order was affirmed with instructions for remand to correct the noted discrepancies.
Legal Issues Addressed
Inconsistency Between Oral and Written Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The inconsistency between the oral pronouncement and the written orders regarding attorney fees required a remand to align the written order with the oral finding.
Reasoning: Both parties agreed that the oral pronouncement should prevail, prompting a remand for correction of the written orders.
Preservation of Issues for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court declined to consider claims regarding the PSI report because the appellant did not object during sentencing, thus failing to preserve the issue for appeal.
Reasoning: However, the court referenced prior rulings indicating that Houghmaster failed to preserve these issues for appeal, as he did not object to the PSI report at sentencing.
Restitution for Victim Counselingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The order for restitution must be directly linked to the crime committed, and the appellant can challenge any excessive charges.
Reasoning: The court clarified that restitution for counseling must be linked to the crime, and Houghmaster could contest any excessive charges.
Sentencing Recommendations in Presentence Investigation Reportssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that sentencing recommendations in the PSI are not binding and the district court did not abuse its discretion by considering them.
Reasoning: Regarding sentencing recommendations, the court ruled that the district court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the presentence investigation (PSI) report, as recommendations therein are not binding.
Use of Risk Assessment Tools in Sentencingsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the use of risk assessment tools in sentencing as authorized under Iowa Code section 901.5 (2017), despite concerns about their validity, because the appellant failed to object at trial.
Reasoning: The Iowa Supreme Court addressed Houghmaster’s challenge regarding the use of risk assessment tools in sentencing, affirming their statutory authorization under Iowa Code section 901.5 (2017) as 'pertinent information' in State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545 (Iowa 2019).