Opinion

State v. Hildebrand

  • 280 N.W.2d 393
  • 1979 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 945
Court
Supreme Court of Iowa
Filed
Jun 27, 1979
Status
Published
Author
McGIVERIN
On the bench
Reynoldson, Uhlen-Hopp, Harris, McCormick, McGiverin
Cited by
125 cases

stating that where a court is required to exercise discretion, “[a]ny such determination has long been recognized as requiring an actual exercise of judgment upon the part of the court” and “[t]o do so necessitates a consideration by the court of the facts and circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair, and just determination” (citation omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • stating that where a court is required to exercise discretion, “[a]ny such determination has long been recognized as requiring an actual exercise of judgment upon the part of the court” and “[t]o do so necessitates a consideration by the court of the facts and circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair, and just determination” (citation omitted)
  • stating that section 321.281, providing punishment for first-offense operating while intoxicated, must be read in pari materia with section 901.5, granting courts the authority to defer judgment, defer sentence or suspend sentence
  • noting that “instead of considering the minimal essential [sentencing] factors we consistently have identified, [the sentencing court] impermissibly selected only one . . . attending circumstance which triggered the court’s previously-fixed sentencing policy.”
  • holding a sentencing court is not permitted to select only one circumstance to trigger a fixed sentencing policy

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McGIVERIN, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur in the opinion, but feel compelled to write further.

The opinion states the accident is not unimportant or irrelevant as an attending circumstance in sentencing. With that I agree, but the statement does not go far enough.

I believe an accident in which an OMVUI defendant is at fault and which results at least in part from defendant’s driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage can be a very important factor, although not the only factor, in consideration of a proper sentence for the individual defendant. Our OMVUI law was enacted to protect persons using the highways from accidents caused by drinking drivers.

I would not want trial courts to be deterred by the result we reach today from giving appropriate weight to occurrence of an accident and its attendant circumstances when considering a sentence.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.