State of Iowa v. Mohamed Wallace

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0349
Filed August 30, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

MOHAMED WALLACE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg,

Judge.

A defendant appeals a five-year prison sentence following a guilty plea to

child endangerment causing bodily injury. AFFIRMED.

Karmen Anderson, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Anagha Dixit, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2

TABOR, Judge.

“The court finds that probation is not acceptable in this case.” So said the

district court in its rejection of Mohamed Wallace’s proposed punishment. Instead,

it sentenced Wallace to a prison term not to exceed five years after he pleaded

guilty to child endangerment causing bodily injury, an offense that the court

described as “horrific.” Wallace now appeals this sentence, alleging that the court

abused its discretion. We find no abuse of discretion as the court properly

balanced the relevant factors, so we affirm.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

In February 2021, police responded to a report that Wallace assaulted his

six-year-old daughter, M.W. According to the minutes of testimony, the child told

a family friend that her father accused her of stealing money, “placed a piece of

clothing in her mouth so that she couldn’t scream”, and then “poured pepper [juice]

in her eyes and crotch.” As she kicked him to get away, M.W. recalled Wallace

punching her in the eye.

The State charged Wallace with child endangerment causing bodily injury

and neglect of a dependent person. See Iowa Code §§ 726.3, 726.6 (2021).

The parties reached a plea agreement, in which Wallace agreed to plead

guilty to child endangerment in exchange for the State dismissing the neglect

charge. The State also agreed to join his recommendation for a suspended

sentence and two years of probation. In his written plea, Wallace admitted to this

factual basis: “[O]n or about February 7, 2021, in Polk County, Iowa, [he] used

unreasonable force in discipling [M.W.], causing a bruise on her eye.”
3

At the sentencing hearing, the State recommended that Wallace receive the

maximum sentence of up to five years in prison.1 Wallace, on the other hand,

argued for probation or placement in a residential facility so that he could continue

to work and support his daughter and family living out of state. In his allocution,

Wallace asserted that he did not “have any issues.” He told the district court: “if I

was a real troublemaker, I would have had way more charges than the one I am

facing right now.” The court rejected this argument and sentenced him to

incarceration of up to five years. The court explained:

This is due to the defendant’s record, defendant’s lack of remorse,
defendant’s age, circumstance of the case, and the facts which I
believe [the State] described quite clearly as horrific and the court
finds that incarceration is the only way to protect the public from
further criminal activity by the defendant.

The court also ordered Wallace to complete the Iowa Domestic Abuse

Program. The court reasoned that he could give that curriculum “his undivided

attention” while in the prison system and the program would better provide an

“opportunity for any rehabilitation.” Wallace appeals this sentence.

II. Analysis

We review sentencing challenges for abuse of discretion. State v. Wickes,

910 N.W.2d 554, 564 (Iowa 2018). We find an abuse if the court’s decision was

based on unreasonable grounds. Id. The challenge must overcome the

1 In the plea agreement, the State explained that it would not be bound to
recommend a suspended sentence and two years’ probation if any new criminal
charge or violation of the pretrial release arose. In January 2022, Wallace’s pretrial
release was revoked following a charge for assault causing bodily injury. Wallace
does not challenge the State’s amended recommendation on appeal.
4

presumption in favor of the sentence. State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 106 (Iowa

2020).2

Wallace contends that several mitigating factors weighed against

incarceration. He points us to his two previous successful probation periods and

his current employment as evidence that prison was not the most beneficial option.

He also emphasizes that his desire to support his daughter would be hindered by

a prison sentence. On top of that, Wallace contests the State’s reliance on “new

criminal activity that was unproven.” And he objects to the court’s adoption of the

State’s characterization of his offense as “horrific.” Wallace asserts that nothing in

the sentencing record supported that description of his acts.

Starting with Wallace’s last point, we disagree with his limited view of the

facts before the sentencing court. In the plea order, the court noted its reliance on

the minutes of testimony to support the factual basis for child endangerment.

Wallace’s presentence investigation (PSI) report also referenced the minutes of

testimony as support for both the official version and the victim’s version of events.

And when asked at sentencing if he had any corrections to the PSI, defense

counsel mentioned several facts but not those references to the minutes.

The court may rely on the PSI when it is not challenged by the defendant.

State v. Guise, 921 N.W.2d 26, 30 (Iowa 2018). The court may also rely on the

minutes of testimony so long as they are necessary to support the factual basis for

2 To appeal following a guilty plea, the defendant must show good cause. Iowa
Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2022). The State concedes that Wallace has good cause—
a “legally sufficient reason” to appeal. Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 100. “[T]he good-
cause requirement is satisfied in this context when the defendant appeals a
sentence that was neither mandatory nor agreed to in the plea bargain.” Id.
Wallace’s appeal falls within both categories.
5

the plea. State v. Gonzalez, 582 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Iowa 1998); State v. Martin,

No. 22-0021, 2023 WL 386717, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2023).

We find that the minutes of testimony and PSI support the court’s

characterization of this event and provide enough support for its chosen sentence.

Wallace didn’t challenge the PSI’s references to the minutes of testimony, which

included M.W.’s version of the events and Wallace’s limited additions to that

narrative. These sources tell the story of a father who used force to “punish” his

daughter with pepper juice and his fist.

In his guilty plea, Wallace admitted using unreasonable force while

disciplining his child, which is best illustrated by the descriptions provided in the

minutes of testimony. Unlike Martin, where the sentencing judge drew from “a

series of crimes” and improperly referred to the minutes of testimony, the court

here invokes a single incident of “discipline” that contributes to the factual basis in

the plea. No. 22-0021, 2023 WL 386717, at *2. We agree that this single incident

can be described as horrific.

We next move to Wallace’s complaint about “unproven” criminal activity.

The prosecutor said, “We have somebody who violated the terms of pretrial

release on two different occasions by committing new offenses while this case was

pending.”3 But she then clarified: “I am asking the court not to consider offenses

to which he has not pled guilty for any other purpose other than the fact that it

3 When Wallace failed to appear for trial in July 2021, the court ordered his pretrial

release status be revoked and new bond conditions be imposed. In January 2022,
the court revoked Wallace’s pretrial release bond status after he was arrested for
a new assault charge.
6

violated his pretrial release, and how does that reflect on his ability to be successful

when supervised by those exact same people?”

In giving its reasons for imposing a prison sentence, the court did not

mention unproven criminal activity. Instead, the court pointed to Wallace’s lack of

remorse, the circumstances of this case, the community’s need for protection, and

Wallace’s opportunity for rehabilitation. We find no abuse of discretion in that

sentencing rationale. See State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (“The

right of an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an

appropriate sentence inheres in the discretionary standard.”). The district court’s

lack of reference to Wallace’s employment or other probation periods does not

mean that it did not consider them in reaching its decision. See State v. Boltz, 542

N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). And the court was free to give more weight to

the nature of the offense and Wallace’s lack of remorse than to the mitigating

factors Wallace presented. Thus, we affirm the sentencing decision.

AFFIRMED