STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. TIMOTHY DANIEL DUGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-286 / 06-1441
Filed May 23, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TIMOTHY DANIEL DUGAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Gary D. McKenrick,
Judge.
Timothy Dugan appeals from the sentence entered upon his convictions
for a drug stamp violation and assault causing injury. AFFIRMED.
Timothy McCarthy of McCarthy & Hamrock, P.C., West Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Thomas Tauber, Assistant Attorney
General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Amy Devine,
and Rob Cusack, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Miller, JJ.
2
VOGEL, J.
On July 21, 2006, Timothy Dugan pled guilty to a drug tax stamp violation,
in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.3 (2005), and assault causing bodily
injury, in violation of section 708.2(2). Following that plea, the Iowa Department
of Correctional Services compiled a presentence investigation report in which it
recommended probation.
At the subsequent sentencing hearing, Dugan
requested probation, while the State declined to give any recommendation. The
court sentenced him to a term of imprisonment not to exceed five years on the
tax stamp conviction and a concurrent term of 120 days on the assault
conviction. Dugan appeals, claiming “the district court’s decision to sentence
[him] to prison was unreasonable.”
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa
1998). 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). 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. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995).
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing
Dugan to a term of imprisonment. First, the sentence imposed was within the
statutory limits. See State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996); see
also
Iowa
Code
§§
902.9(5)
(class
“D”
felony),
903.1(1)(b)
(serious
3
misdemeanor).
Second, prior to the current convictions, Dugan had been
convicted of aggravated battery in Illinois, placed on and successfully completed
thirty months of probation. After reviewing the presentence investigation report,
the court stated on the record, “[t]he greatest concern to the Court is the
Defendant’s previous conviction for aggravated battery . . . It doesn’t appear . . .
that further probation would be an effective deterrent to further criminal activity by
the Defendant.” The court then concluded that the “sentence also would provide
the greatest security to the community from further criminal activity by the
Defendant” and sentenced Dugan accordingly. Neither this reasoning nor the
resulting sentence demonstrates an abuse of discretion by the district court. We
therefore affirm the sentence imposed.
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.
