IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 19-0085 Filed February 5, 2020 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JACOB A. BOOTHBY, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jackson County, Nancy S. Tabor, Judge. Jacob Boothby appeals the sentence imposed upon his conviction for assault with intent to inflict serious injury. AFFIRMED. Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Israel Kodiaga, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Considered by Bower, C.J., and May and Greer, JJ. Tabor, J., takes no part. 2 BOWER, Chief Judge. Jacob Boothby pleaded guilty to assault with intent to inflict serious injury. On appeal, he asserts the sentencing court improperly considered his failure to sign a release of information for mental-health and substance-abuse treatment.1 Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentence. Sentencing decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Avalos Valez, 934 N.W.2d 585, 588 (Iowa 2019). An abuse of discretion will only be found when “the district court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 2014). Iowa law requires the sentencing court to take into account all pertinent information in order to select the sentencing option that provides “maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community.”2 Iowa Code § 901.5 (2018). 1 The State argues Boothby has no right to appeal his sentence based on the newly enacted amendments to Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a) (2020). Because Boothby’s appeal was pending before the effective date of the amendment—July 1, 2019—it is not applicable here. See State v. Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226, 231 (Iowa 2019). 2 Avalos Valez, though not directly on point, provides guidance: Immigration status per se is not a relevant sentencing factor, but immigration status may impact an otherwise relevant sentencing factor and, to that extent, may be considered. Such a procedure does not violate due process or equal protection. To the contrary, it complies with Iowa law, which requires the court to take into account all pertinent information in order to select the sentencing option that provides “maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community.” 934 N.W.2d at 593 (citation omitted). 3 Here, the presentence investigation (PSI) report noted Boothby had several problematic incidents during his pretrial incarceration, he had been placed in segregation at least once, and an anti-depressant was being used to address his “outbursts and anxiety.” Boothby had been ordered to obtain mental-health and substance-abuse evaluations. The PSI report also noted that during the last month of his pretrial incarceration, Boothby had refused taking his prescribed mental- health medication. The PSI report recommended incarceration. The State sought a term of imprisonment and a five-year protective order for the victim of the offense. The defense requested supervised probation. The defense noted Boothby had a history of mental-health issues and self-medication, which counsel argued ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals