STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JAMES PAUL SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-711 / 05-1712
Filed October 11, 2006
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JAMES PAUL SMITH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Wapello County, Kirk A. Daily,
Judge.
James Paul Smith appeals from the sentence entered upon his conviction
of operating while intoxicated, first offense. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Martha Lucey, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney
General, Mark Tremmel, County Attorney, and Ron Kelly, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Defendant-appellant, James Paul Smith, appeals the sentence imposed
upon him for the offenses of stalking, in violation of Iowa Code section
708.11(3)(b)(4) (2005); operating while intoxicated, first offense, in violation of
section 321J.2; and third-degree burglary, in violation of section 113.6A. He
contends the district court considered improper factors in sentencing him. We
affirm.
Smith was initially charged with stalking; operating while intoxicated, third
offense; third-degree burglary; harassment; driving while barred; and driving
while operating privileges have been suspended, denied, or revoked. He filed a
written guilty plea to the charges of operating while intoxicated, first offense, and
third-degree burglary. The district court also accepted a guilty plea to the charge
of stalking. The district court sentenced Smith to a term of imprisonment not to
exceed five years and a fine of $750 for stalking; one year in prison and a fine of
$1,000 for operating while intoxicated, first offense; and a term of imprisonment
not to exceed two years and a fine of $500 for third-degree burglary.
Smith contends the district court considered the original charge of
operating while intoxicated, third offense, in sentencing him. He points to the
statement made by the district court in announcing its reason for the sentence
that “[t]his was a third offense . . . OWI that was knocked down to a first” and that
defendant had “at least one prior third that was knocked down to a second.”
The State contends the court’s consideration of the crime of operating a
motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, was not an abuse of discretion
because it is not an unproven charge in that defendant was twice convicted of
3
operating while intoxicated. In making this argument the State makes reference
to two pages of the pre-sentence investigation (PSI) report, but leaves it to us to
determine whether it shows that a third offense was reduced to a first and at least
one prior third was knocked down to a second.
A sentence imposed by the district court is reviewed for errors at law.
State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). The decision of the district
court to impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a
strong presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of
discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters. State v. Pappas, 337
N.W.2d 490, 494 (Iowa 1983) (citing State v. Gartin, 271 N.W.2d 902, 910 (Iowa
1978)). A district court may “impose a severe sentence for a lower crime on the
ground that the accused actually committed a higher crime on the occasion
involved if the facts before the court show the accused committed the higher
crime.” State v. Longo, 608 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 2000) (quoting State v.
Thompson, 275 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Iowa 1979)). We look to the “sufficiency of the
record to establish the matter relied on.” Longo, 608 N.W.2d at 474. If the
district court relied on improper factors, we will remand the case for resentencing.
State v. Black, 324 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa 1982).
The district court may consider any portion of the PSI report, including
criminal history, not challenged by the defendant when determining an
appropriate sentence. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 402 (Iowa Ct. App.
2000). Smith did not challenge the accuracy of this portion of the report. This
constitutes “sufficient facts” from which the district court could consider Smith’s
prior OWI offenses. See State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1998)
4
(finding the unchallenged PSI mental history portion “constituted sufficient facts
from which the sentencing court could consider the defendant’s prior sexual
abuse”). We conclude the district court did not rely upon inappropriate factors
when sentencing the defendant. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
