Background
Santonio Duntae Burnett pleaded guilty under North Carolina v. Alford to operating while intoxicated, third or subsequent offense, a class D felony under Iowa Code section 321J.2. The case returned to the district court for resentencing after an earlier appeal and remand.
The minutes stated that police stopped Burnett after he ran a stop sign and swerved. An officer observed multiple signs of intoxication, but Burnett refused testing. At resentencing, Burnett told the court he believed he had become sober and had taken steps to move forward and correct his past wrongs.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the sentence. It rejected Burnett’s sole appellate claim that the sentencing court improperly considered a lack of remorse.
Burnett conceded that lack of remorse is a permissible sentencing factor, but argued that the record did not support the finding. The appellate court held that the district court, which heard Burnett’s allocution firsthand, was best positioned to assess its sincerity. The written sentencing order’s reference to Burnett’s lack of remorse therefore was not an abuse of discretion.
Key Takeaways
- A sentencing court may consider a defendant’s lack of remorse.
- The sentencing judge may assess remorse from the defendant’s allocution.
- An appellate court will not disturb that assessment absent an abuse of discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the deference Iowa appellate courts give trial judges’ firsthand evaluations of a defendant’s allocution at sentencing. A defendant’s statement of rehabilitation or efforts to improve does not preclude the sentencing court from finding insufficient remorse.