STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CRAIG STEVEN SHOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-838 / 06-1819
Filed November 29, 2007
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CRAIG STEVEN SHOCK,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Butler County, Stephen P. Carroll,
Judge.
Craig Steven Shock appeals from the district court’s judgment and
sentence for third-degree sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Mark A. Milder, Waverly, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney
General, Gregory M. Lievens, County Attorney.
.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
Craig Steven Shock pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse. Iowa Code
§§ 702.17, 709.1, 709.4(2)(c)(4) (2005). The district court sentenced him to a
prison term not exceeding ten years and this appeal followed.
Shock first argues he was denied effective assistance of counsel because
his attorney
failed to adequately review the written guilty plea and presentence
investigation report with [him] . . . to be reasonably available to
consult with [him] throughout the case, failed to raise facts
beneficial to [him] at sentencing, and unduly influenced [him] to
enter a guilty plea.
Shock and the State agree that this ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim
should be preserved for postconviction relief proceedings. We concur in this
assessment.
Shock next argues the district court abused its discretion in sentencing
him. He “asks that the case be remanded for re-sentencing so that a more
thorough examination of the community-based options be made to allow the
Court to make a reasoned and fact-based decision.”
A court is obligated to determine, in its discretion, which authorized
sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the
defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the
defendant and others.” Iowa Code § 901.5. The district court did so. The court
began by asking Shock for his thoughts about sentencing goals.
Shock
responded that, “the safety of other people” was one goal. The court agreed,
and explained there was a second goal of rehabilitation. In discussing this goal,
the court said it reviewed Shock’s presentence investigation report and other
3
documentation of Shock’s past. From this documentation, the court gleaned that
Shock had “a deep sense of being victimized and unjustly treated.” The court
found this sense grounded in fact and said Shock’s victimization evoked “some
compassion and empathy.” However, the court stated Shock was a victimizer as
well as a victim, a fact that Shock failed to appreciate. The court concluded
Shock needed sexual offender treatment to gain an understanding of his
victimizing behavior, and the best place to receive it was in the “State penal
system.” We discern no abuse of discretion in this sentencing decision. State v.
Dicks, 473 N.W.2d 210, 216 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991).
We affirm Shock’s judgment and sentence and preserve his ineffectiveassistance-of-counsel claim for postconviction relief.
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.
