Please visit my author page at amazon.com
State of Iowa v. William Frank Fetner. Iowa Criminal Law, Sentincing
The defendant in this Cerro Gordo, Iowa, case pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Prior to his sentencing, his lawyer made the following argument:
He's, I guess, not very consistent with taking his medications so the marijuana seems like basically a way to self-medicate for the anxiety that he feels.... He has a home there with a significant other and the two of them, along with, I believe, a third person, are running a day care center and so he helps where he can there in an effort to keep the expenses down for their home but also to provide for the family....
The court asked the defendant if he had anything to add and the defedant said that he had not. The trial court sentenced the defendant to two consecutive sentences of up to two years, in part because the judge was "terrified" that the defendant was helping to run a day care, and that it was not safe for him to be caring for children if under the influence.
The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly considered these factors, since there was no sworn evidence as to the daycare, and no evidence that he was under the influence while caring for children. The case was heard by the Iowa Supreme Court.
The court first held that the lawyer's statement, in the context of sentencing, was properly considered as a "professional statement." It also held that the defendant acquiesced to this statement when asked if he had anything to add.
The court held, however, that it was improper to conclude that the defendant was under the influence when caring for childrn. The court held that nothing that the defendant or his attorney said "connected the dots" to admit that he was under the influence at work. For these reasons, the court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for resentencing.
No. 19-1561 (Iowa May 7, 2021).
Please see the original opinion for the court's exact language.
Advertisement:
Richard P. Clem is an attorney and continuing legal education (CLE) provider in Minnesota. He has been in private practice in the Twin Cities for 25 years. He has a J.D., cum laude, from Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul and a B.A. in History from the University of Minnesota. His reported cases include: Asociacion Nacional de Pescadores a Pequena Escala o Artesanales de Colombia v. Dow Quimica de Colombia, 988 F.2d 559, rehearing denied, 5 F.3d 530 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1041 (1994); LaMott v. Apple Valley Health Care Center, 465 N.W.2d 585 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Abo el Ela v. State, 468 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
For more information about attorney Clem, please visit
his website.
For more information about his
low-cost CLE programs, please visit his CLE page.
Return to index of case
summaries
Copyright 2021, Richard P. Clem.
Attorney Richard P. Clem is responsible for the content of this page.
Richard P. Clem, Attorney
PO Box 14957
Minneapolis, MN 55414
USA
Phone: +1-612-378-7751
e-mail: clem.law@usa.net
Minnesota Attorney Registration Number 0192648
Please visit my author page at amazon.com