STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. GUY LEE WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-648 / 08-2032
Filed September 2, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GUY LEE WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Henry County, Cynthia Danielson,
Judge.
Appeal from the sentence imposed following a guilty plea. AFFIRMED.
Eric Tindal of Nidey Peterson Erdahl & Tindal, Williamsburg, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Cristen Douglass, Assistant Attorney
General, Darin Stater, County Attorney, and Edward Harvey, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Guy Williams appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea
to possession with intent to deliver ten grams or less of cocaine base.
He
contends the court “committed clear error” in sentencing by focusing only on his
criminal history in determining the appropriate sentence. We affirm.
Williams was charged by trial information in November of 2007.
In
November of 2008 he entered a guilty plea to the charge. The court ordered a
presentence investigation.
At sentencing, Williams requested a suspended
sentence and probation conditioned on successful completion of drug treatment
at the Iowa Residential Treatment Center.
The court sentenced him to an
indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed ten years and imposed a fine of
$1000 plus applicable surcharges. Williams appeals.
We review challenges to sentences for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4
(2008); State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). We will not
disturb a sentence “unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court
discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure, such as trial court
consideration of impermissible factors.” Id. (citations omitted). “An abuse of
discretion is found when the court exercises its discretion on grounds clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Evans, 672 N.W.2d
328, 331 (Iowa 2003). There is a strong presumption in favor of a sentence
given by a trial court that is rebutted only by an affirmative showing of an abuse
of discretion. State v. Bentley, 757 N.W.2d 257, 262 (Iowa 2008). A trial court,
within the limits of applicable statutes, has discretion to select a sentence that
3
affords the defendant the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation yet protects the
community from further offenses by the defendant.
State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002); see Iowa Code § 901.5 (2007).
The court had before it and considered the presentence investigation, the
defendant’s addendum containing personal information, the defendant’s wife’s
testimony concerning his substance abuse problem and his family’s need for him
to be a father, and the defendant’s statements made at the sentencing hearing.
It is very clear from the transcript of the proceedings that the court considered the
defendant’s age, personal background, family situation and responsibilities, loss
of his mother and brother, significant criminal history, lack of favorable response
to the need for substance abuse treatment, need for emotional and grief
counseling, and lack of rehabilitation from prior incarcerations.
The court
considered the services available in the community and in prison. It balanced
society’s need for protection from the defendant with his need for and potential
for rehabilitation. It considered the sentencing recommendations of the State
and defense counsel. The sentence imposed, including waiver of the mandatory
minimum term and the court’s statements about that waiver, demonstrate the
court clearly and carefully exercised its discretion in choosing the sentence best
fitted for the defendant at that time. We find the defendant’s claim the court
improperly focused only on his criminal history to be unsupported by the record
and without merit.
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.
