Categories: Iowa Court Opinions

STATE v. WALLACE, 776 N.W.2d 111 (Iowa App. 2009)

State v. Wallace.

No. 08-1975.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
August 6, 2009.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Cynthia Moisan, Judge.

Defendant appeals his sentence following a guilty plea.AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Mary E. Tabor, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Mark Sandon, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and EISENHAUER and DOYLE, JJ.

EISENHAUER, J.

Johnie Woodrow Wallace appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his guilty plea to criminal mischief in the fourth degree, a serious misdemeanor. The district court sentenced him to one year in jail, suspended the jail sentence, and placed him on probation for one year. The court also ordered:

BATTERER’S EDUCATION PROGRAM. Defendant shall schedule a needs assessment at the time he/she signs up for probation. Defendant shall complete, cooperate with and pay for the 24/36 week Batterer’s Education Program, as well as any recommended treatment or aftercare program. . . .

Wallace contends the district court exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed completion of a batterer’s education program as a term of sentence.[1] We disagree. A court may order the completion of the batterer’s education program as a condition of probation. State v. Manser, 626 N.W.2d 872, 875 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). The portion of the court’s sentencing order placing Wallace on probation states: “Defendant is to comply with all terms and conditions of probation as set forth herein.” It is clear from the context of the sentencing order that the batterer’s education program is a condition of Wallace’s probation and the sentencing court has the authority to order batterer’s education as a condition of probation. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

[1] We do not address Wallace’s conclusory footnote regarding the issue of whether the program would be a “reasonable term of probation.” A random mention of an issue, without elaboration or supportive authority, is not sufficient to raise the issue for review. Soo Line R.R. Co. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 691 (Iowa 1994).
jdjungle

Share
Published by
jdjungle

Recent Posts

STATE v. WARNER, 100 Iowa 260 (1896)

Dec 11, 1896 · Iowa Supreme Court 100 Iowa 260 State of Iowa v. W. J. Warner,…

4 weeks ago

WINGER CONTRACTING COMPANY v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, 926 N.W.2d 526 (2019)

926 N.W.2d 526 (2019) WINGER CONTRACTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. CARGILL, INCORPORATED, Appellee. Tracer Construction, LLC,…

5 years ago

DuTRAC COMMUNITY CREDIT UNION v. HEFEL, No. 15-1379 (Iowa 2/3/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 15–1379 Filed February 3, 2017 DuTRAC COMMUNITY CREDIT…

9 years ago

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. VANDEL, No. 16-1704 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1704 Filed January 27, 2017 IOWA SUPREME COURT…

9 years ago

IOWA SUPREME COURT ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY BOARD v. WILLEY, No. 16-1228 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–1228 Filed January 27, 2017 IOWA SUPREME COURT…

9 years ago

BOARD OF WATER WORKS TRUSTEES v. SAC COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, No. 16-0076 (Iowa 1/27/2017)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA No. 16–0076 Filed January 27, 2017 BOARD OF WATER…

9 years ago