State of Iowa v. Marain Larayondra Rankins

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-0825
Filed April 15, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Marain Larayondra Rankins,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Scott J. Beattie, Judge.
_______________

APPEAL DISMISSED
_______________

Matthew B. De Jong of De Jong Law Firm, P.C., Rochester, Minnesota,
attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
By Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Chicchelly, JJ.
Opinion by Schumacher, J.

1
SCHUMACHER, Judge.
Following plea and sentencing, Marain Rankins challenges his
sentence, claiming the district court abused its discretion in imposing
consecutive sentences. Because we determine Rankins has failed to establish
good cause, we dismiss his appeal.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On June 23, 2023, the State charged Rankins with four counts:
possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to
deliver, a class “B” felony; possession of a controlled substance, marijuana,
with intent to deliver, a class “D” felony; and two counts of failure to possess
a drug tax stamp, class “D” felonies. Less than a week later, in a separate
criminal case, the State filed a fifth charge: criminal mischief in the third
degree, an aggravated misdemeanor.

Pursuant to a global plea agreement, Rankins later entered an Alford
plea1 to possession of controlled substance, marijuana, with intent to deliver;
one count of failure to possess a drug tax stamp; and criminal mischief. He
also agreed to have his probation revoked in a separate pending matter, with
the “original sentence imposed.” The parties agreed that the sentences for
the three charges would run consecutive to each other for a total term of
incarceration not to exceed twelve years, and consecutive to the sentence in
the probation revocation matter, for a total term of incarceration not to
exceed seventeen years. In exchange for the pleas, the State agreed to dismiss
the charge of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and the
remaining drug-tax-stamp charge. Rankins requested immediate sentencing

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (permitting a criminal
defendant to enter a guilty plea without admitting guilt).

2
and waived his right to file a motion in arrest of judgment and his right to
have a presentence investigation report prepared before sentencing. The
district court imposed the agreed-upon sentence.

Rankins now appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion
in imposing consecutive sentences.

The State highlights that our court lacks jurisdiction to address the
merits of Rankins’s claim because Rankins cannot establish good cause to
appeal following his guilty plea, as he received the agreed-upon sentence. See
Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2023) (providing a defendant must establish
good cause for an appeal if the conviction results from a guilty plea to a charge
other than a class “A” felony). The burden is on Rankins to establish good
cause for an appeal. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Iowa 2020).

Typically, a defendant is able to demonstrate good cause by appealing
the sentence rather than the guilty plea. See id. at 105 (“[G]ood cause exists
to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant
challenges his or her sentence rather than the guilty plea.”). But in
establishing that good cause exists to appeal the sentence rather than the
guilty plea, our supreme court has recognized exceptions when the sentence
was either mandatory or agreed to in the plea bargain. State v. Thompson, 951
N.W.2d 1, 2 (Iowa 2020) (citing Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 105).

Our court has enforced the exceptions to sentencing challenges,
dismissing appeals due to lack of showing of good cause when the sentence
imposed is mandatory or the agreed-upon sentence under the plea
agreement. See, e.g., State v. Jenkins, No. 21-1828, 2022 WL 16630805, at *3
(Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2022) (dismissing appeal challenging an agreed-upon
sentence as the defendant “has no remedy because she got what she

3
bargained for and she has not established good cause to appeal”); State v.
McCarroll, No. 20-0641, 2021 WL 4592616, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 6,
2021) (dismissing appeal for lack of good cause due to the sentence imposed
being that agreed to by the parties); State v. Major, No. 19-2055, 2021 WL
3662311, at *1–2 (Iowa Ct. App. Aug. 18, 2021) (dismissing appeal when
challenged sentence was mandatory); State v. Estabrook, No. 22-1118, 2023
WL 2671954, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023) (dismissing appeal when
challenged sentence was agreed to by parties).

Rankins received the sentences that he agreed to in his plea agreement.
He has not established good cause to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss his
appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

4