STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHEYENNE SLY ROUSE, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-758 / 09-0217
Filed October 21, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHEYENNE SLY ROUSE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert J. Blink,
Judge.
Cheyenne Rouse appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences upon
his guilty pleas to possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) with intent to
deliver and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and David Arthur Adams,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, John Sarcone, County Attorney, and Joseph Crisp, Assistant County
Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield, J., and Huitink, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
POTTERFIELD, J.
Cheyenne Rouse pleaded guilty to (1) possession of a controlled
substance (cocaine) with intent to deliver and (2) failure to affix a drug tax stamp.
The district court imposed consecutive sentences and Rouse appealed. The
supreme court summarily reversed and remanded for resentencing.
At resentencing, on January 16, 2009, the district court heard the
arguments of counsel and the defendant’s personal statement. The court stated
it had “carefully been through this presentence investigation report.” The court
noted the presentence investigator’s recommendation of imprisonment, “the
seriousness of the charges,” and the defendant’s “extended criminal record” in
three different states. The court noted the nature of the offenses and concluded
that consecutive sentences were appropriate.
The court also found that
probation would not be appropriate for those same reasons. The court then
entered judgment, imposing consecutive sentences.
Rouse again appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences, contending
the district court failed to exercise its discretion upon resentencing. The record
does not support the contention. We affirm. See Iowa R. App. P. 21.29(1)(d),(e).
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.
