STATE v. RICHMOND (2026)

Darel Richmond appeals from the sentence imposed by the district court after it revoked his deferred judgment on guilty pleas to possession of a firearm as a prohibited person, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 724.26(2)(a) (2025), and possession of a controlled substance—marijuana, a serious misdemeanor in violation of section 124.401(5)(b). He asserts the court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to prison.

At a combined probation-revocation and sentencing proceeding, the State put on evidence and the district court found that Richmond had violated the terms of his probation by, among other things, consuming alcohol and using methamphetamine. Richmond testified, but the court repeatedly found his explanations or excuses for the violations were not credible. The prosecutor recommended revocation and incarceration, emphasizing Richmond's failure to rehabilitate. Richmond's attorney argued he made mistakes but that he could be successfully rehabilitated without incarceration. And in allocution, Richmond urged he was a “different person” and could succeed on probation. The court disagreed and sentenced Richmond to prison, highlighting his repeated failure to rehabilitate even after receiving the deferred judgment.

“[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002). We discern no abuse of discretion in the court sentencing Richmond to prison after revoking his deferred judgment, given Richmond's failure to rehabilitate.

AFFIRMED.

BULLER, Judge.