You're right, but. . . .



The new decisions of the Iowa Court of Appeals are up. One case I noticed involved a sentencing hearing. In State v. Root, the Court held:



"After thoroughly reviewing the record, we determine the district court appeared to exhibit and express a predetermined sentencing bias in this case. We specifically call attention to the fact the court commenced the sentencing proceedings by stating he was going to send Root to prison unless Root was able to talk his way out of it. The problem with these statements is they were made before the court considered or discussed any of the relevant sentencing factors and reflect a fixed, predetermined sentencing posture. This predetermined posture appears to have precluded the exercise of the court’s discretion in rendering judgment. See State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979). In addition, the court made mention of the number of hours the police had expended on Root’s case. While this statement normally would not be problematic, we do have concerns with this statement in this case, particularly in light of the other comments made by the district court throughout the sentencing proceeding."



An examination of the record makes it pretty clear what the Court was talking about:



THE COURT: Okay. Mr. Root, you’re starting out in a hole in this case. It’s a big hole. My intent today is to send you to prison. I’m going to give you the opportunity to talk yourself out of that. You better be real persuasive, because there’s a series of incidents that indicate a course of conduct to me in reviewing the Minutes of Testimony that are almost eerie in the sense of being scary. So it’s your opportunity at this point in time to tell me why I shouldn’t send you to prison.



ROOT: Okay. Should I stand up?



THE COURT: No.



ROOT: Okay. Your Honor, I’m here to take responsibility for what I’ve done. I made a mistake. Like you said. I was taking an over-the-counter steroid.



THE COURT: That’s a cop-out. I don’t care to hear that. I never care to hear that. You’re responsible for your conduct.



ROOT: Okay.



THE COURT: Period. Don’t sit here and tell me that that’s a result of some over-the-counter steroid. . . . .



THE COURT: Not a real good job of talking your way out of this. . . . .



THE COURT: I assume you have read the Minutes of Testimony. There are hundreds of hours that the police department has spent with the crimes that you’ve committed. . . . .



THE COURT: Oh, golly. Maybe you should have gone to trial, then. Maybe what I ought to do at this point in time is allow you to withdraw the plea agreement and go to trial on these things. I mean, frankly, I am not one bit sympathetic to you. Not at all. I mean, your conduct here, the State could easily prove the burglaries here. They cut you a big deal.



ROOT: Like I said, I have read the reports, Your Honor, but there are some things in there that didn’t happen that they said took place.



THE COURT: Maybe you ought to take your shot at a trial in this and prove those things didn’t happen. They have fingerprints all over the place.



ROOT: I’m not arguing that, Your Honor. I’m not arguing about the crimes they said I committed, but there are things in there that was said between Mindy [the victim] and the police officers that was just taken out of context. I’m not here arguing the fact of what I’ve done, Your Honor. That’s why I’m here. I’m here to take responsibility for that.





But then, there's the kicker:



"We conclude the district court abused its sentencing discretion, considered impermissible facts, and the matter should be remanded for resentencing."



All right and good and legally correct. Now he's got to go back in front of the trial court for resentencing. . . .





Good luck?