STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CHRISTOPHER LANCE MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-805 / 09-0249
Filed November 12, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CHRISTOPHER LANCE MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Phillip J. Tabor,
District Associate Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence for assault causing bodily injury.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Thomas Gaul, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Elisabeth S. Reynoldson, Assistant
Attorney General, Mike L. Wolf, County Attorney, and Michael Walton, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Nelson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
MANSFIELD, J.
On December 22, 2008, following a jury trial, Miller was convicted of
assault causing bodily injury in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.2
(2007).
The victim, a young woman who had previously dated Miller, was
speaking with Miller on the landing below her apartment on June 13, 2008. Miller
started to make threatening statements. She ran up to her apartment. Miller
followed. She tried to close the door. Miller broke through. He slammed her
head between the door and the wall. Miller repeatedly punched the victim in the
face and body for a couple of minutes. Finally, “he looked at my face and saw
what he had done to me and felt horrible about it and that’s what made him stop.”
Miller stood by the door and would not let the victim leave. After about ten
minutes, Miller’s mother showed up, and after another ten minutes, she
persuaded her son to let the victim leave. The victim went to the emergency
room. She had a broken nose, split and fat lip, two busted eyes which later
turned black, with left eye swelling shut, and lumps and bruises over her head,
back, and chest.
On January 13, 2009, the district court sentenced Miller to twelve months
in jail and ordered him to pay attorney fees, court costs, and restitution in the
amount of $100 to his victim. Additionally, the district court ordered Miller to
complete a batterer’s education program.
Miller appeals his sentence.
He
challenges the requirement of participation in a batterer’s education program as
an illegal sentence. He also contends the district court abused its discretion in
relying on a criminal history exhibit and in sentencing him to the maximum term
of incarceration.
3
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907 (2009); State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756,
758 (Iowa 1998).
“A sentence must comply with all applicable sentencing
statutes [and if] a sentence is not authorized by statute, it is void.”
State v.
Manser, 626 N.W.2d 872, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). A sentence imposed in
accordance with all applicable statutes will not be disturbed on appeal unless the
defendant shows an abuse of discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure,
such as the district court’s consideration of impermissible factors.
State v.
Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). A sentence within the statutory
limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor. Id. An abuse of discretion
will not be found unless the defendant shows that such discretion was exercised
on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.
State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000).
“In exercising its
discretion, the district court is to weigh all pertinent matters in determining a
proper sentence including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances,
the defendant’s age, character, and propensities or chances for reform.” State v.
Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995) (citations and quotations omitted).
Miller first asserts the district court erred in ordering him to complete a
batterer’s education program. Under the facts of the case, a batterer’s education
program would have been quite reasonable. However, the State concedes, and
we agree, that the district court lacked authority to impose a batterer’s education
program on Miller as part of his sentence (rather than as a condition of
probation).
Because Miller was not placed on probation, this portion of the
sentence was not authorized by statute. This case is controlled by Manser, 626
4
N.W.2d at 874-75. The inclusion of a batterer’s education program in Miller’s
sentence was outside the statutory limits and void. See Manser, 626 N.W.2d at
875. Thus, we vacate the portion of Miller’s sentence ordering him to complete
the batterer’s education program.
Miller next challenges the imposition of a maximum period of
incarceration. He asserts the district court improperly considered a one-page
exhibit listing Miller’s prior convictions and wrongly sentenced the defendant “as
if he had been convicted of a domestic assault.” We find no merit to either
argument. The State’s exhibit listed Miller’s previous convictions. Miller and his
trial counsel were given an opportunity to review the document, corrected a
minor error, and did not otherwise object to the exhibit. Except for the minor
error that was corrected, Miller does not assert the list was inaccurate. The
sentencing court properly considered Miller’s lengthy criminal history. See Sailer,
587 N.W.2d at 763 (stating an appropriate factor to consider is the defendant’s
prior convictions). As the court put it, citing the dates of some of Miller’s prior
convictions:
Your attorney discussed rehabilitation. I believe that perhaps in
1996 rehabilitation was appropriate; I believe probably in 2001
rehabilitation was appropriate; and perhaps in 2006 it was. It’s
pretty obvious from the testimony that the Court heard in this trial
the Court’s duty here is to protect the community, and the only
protection that the Court sees available to it is to separate you from
society, and that’s why I’ve issued the sentence that I have.
See also Iowa Code § 901.5 (stating the sentencing court shall consider the
protection of the community from further offenses).
Although Miller asserts the district court impermissibly imposed sentence
as if he had been convicted of domestic assault, a “sentencing court may look to
5
the facts and circumstances surrounding the crime” in determining the
appropriate sentence. Manser, 626 N.W.2d at 874; see Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at
724 (stating a sentencing court shall consider the nature of the offense). Nothing
in the record indicates the district court considered any improper factors. See
Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725 (“We will not draw an inference of improper
sentencing considerations which are not apparent from the record.”). To the
contrary, the district court appropriately considered the nature of Miller’s brutal
assault on his victim, as described in the witness testimony and as illustrated in
the photographs of her after the beating, as well as Miller’s substantial criminal
history. Thus, Miller’s arguments regarding the maximum period of incarceration
and improper sentencing factors must fail.
We vacate the portion of Miller’s sentence ordering him to complete a
batterer’s education program. We affirm the remainder of his sentence.
SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART.
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.
