State of Iowa v. Jerry Christopher Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 24-1162
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Jerry Christopher Johnson,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County,
The Honorable Shane M. Wiley, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, attorney for
appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman and Anagha Dixit
(until withdrawal), Assistant Attorneys General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Schumacher, P.J., Langholz, J., and Bower, S.J.
Opinion by Bower, S.J.

1
BOWER, Senior Judge.

Jerry Johnson appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after
revocation of his deferred judgment, claiming the court abused its discretion
by sentencing him to prison. Upon our review, we affirm.

In 2018, the State filed a trial information charging Johnson with
possession with intent to deliver marijuana, a class “D” felony, in violation
of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2018). Johnson pled guilty to the charge,
was granted a deferred judgment, and was placed on probation for a period
not exceeding five years.

In 2019, Johnson was arrested for violating the terms of his probation
in multiple ways: failing to report to his probation officer, failing to meet his
financial obligations, and perhaps most significantly, being arrested for public
intoxication. Johnson admitted to all violations, and the district court decided
to continue his deferred judgment and probation but added an additional
term requiring Johnson to reside in a halfway house, which he completed in
March 2020.

In October 2020, a warrant was issued after the court received a report
from Johnson’s probation officer alleging Johnson violated the terms of his
probation, including absconding from probation supervision. Johnson was
arrested on the warrant in April 2024. An addendum was attached to the
probation violation in which Johnson’s probation officer reported Johnson
was arrested for public intoxication in February 2024. Johnson, through
counsel, admitted to all probation violations. In a separate sentencing
hearing, the district court heard testimony from Johnson and his probation
officer. Johnson testified to having a job in Iowa City, a stable place to live,
and a desire to complete outpatient treatment.

2
The district court revoked Johnson’s deferred judgment and
sentenced him to incarceration for a term not to exceed five years. Johnson
appeals, claiming the court abused its discretion by imposing this sentence.

We review revocation of probation for an abuse of discretion. State v.
Covel, 925 N.W.2d 183, 187 (Iowa 2019). A court abuses its discretion when
it bases its decision “on grounds or for reasons that are clearly untenable or
unreasonable.” Id. When a court imposes a sentence within the statutory
limits, it is “cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor.” State v. Damme,
944 N.W.2d 98, 105–06 (Iowa 2020) (quoting State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
720, 724 (Iowa 2002)).

Johnson contends the district court should have given more weight to
his inclination to receive substance-abuse treatment and his positive
employment history. The court, when ruling, expressed concern over
Johnson’s ability to follow the terms of his probation, specifically highlighting
Johnson’s abscondence for “essentially four years.” The court explained, “It
makes the court pause in terms of its faith that you can follow through or will
follow through with any kind of court order requiring any kind of further
probation. You didn’t succeed before because you didn’t follow through with
what was required of you.” The court considered this aggravating factor to
outweigh the mitigating factors such as Johnson’s age and his employment
and living circumstances.

Johnson does not point to any improper factors or clearly untenable
grounds in the district court’s decision. He just expresses disagreement with
the severity of the punishment, which, “without more, is insufficient to
establish an abuse of discretion.” See State v. Pena, No. 15-0988, 2016 WL

3
1133807, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 23, 2016). Because the district court’s
sentencing decision was not untenable or unreasonable, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

4