STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JUDITH ANNE EATON, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-777 / 07-0114
Filed November 29, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
JUDITH ANNE EATON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark J. Smith,
Judge.
Defendant appeals from the judgment and sentence of probation following
a
guilty
plea.
SENTENCE
VACATED
AND
REMANDED
FOR
RESENTENCING.
Brian Farrell, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney
General, and Michael J. Walton, Acting Scott County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Miller and Eisenhauer, JJ.
2
EISENHAUER, J.
Judith Eaton appeals from the judgment and sentence of three years
probation entered upon her conviction of one count of second-degree arson and
one count of using a juvenile to commit an indictable offense in violation of Iowa
Code sections 712.3, 709A.6 (2005) following a guilty plea. Eaton contends
errors occurred during the sentencing process and requests her sentence be
vacated and the case remanded for resentencing.
We review sentencing procedures for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Craig, 562 N.W.2d 633, 634 (Iowa 1997). “Such abuse will only be found if the
district court’s discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id.
Eaton first argues the trial court failed to consider the sentencing option of
a deferred judgment. Eaton signed a memorandum of plea agreement which
detailed the State’s sentencing concessions: “The State will recommend against
incarceration . . . recognizing that the court may grant a deferred judgment or
place defendant on probation.” A presentence investigation report (PSI) was
compiled, which stated Eaton had a prior deferred judgment.
However, no
deferred judgment was found after a search of the deferred judgment docket.
The judge had access to both documents at sentencing.
At the sentencing hearing, the court asked if Eaton had reviewed the
presentence report and had any corrections to make to it.
Eaton had “no
additions or corrections.” Next, the court allowed Eaton’s counsel to make a
statement regarding sentencing and he replied:
As you’ll note, my client has essentially no criminal history. We’re
asking the court to follow the plea agreement. I believe the plea
3
agreement calls for the State’s recommendation of probation and
that probation will eventually be transferred up to – Bellevue, is it?
The court reviewed the PSI and stated, “I don’t find any serious – really serious
violations, although, Ms. Eaton, you’ve had a prior deferred judgment.” Because
the court may have considered a nonexistent prior deferred judgment, we must
remand for resentencing.
Eaton next argues the court erred by failing to provide reasons for the
sentence imposed. The court sentenced Eaton at the same time it sentenced
her husband. It is unclear if the reasons given by the court for the sentence
imposed applied to both Eatons or to just Mr. Eaton. Resentencing will give the
court the opportunity to clarify its reasoning.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
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.
