Ad-Express and Daily Iowegian, Centerville, IA

CNHI/Southeast Iowa

May 14, 2014

Court rejects abuse appeals

DES MOINES — Appeals from a pair of abuse cases, one from Appanoose County and a second from Mahaska County, have been rejected.

Both cases highlight an important aspect of the law. While a defendant may reach a plea bargain with the state, a judge is not always required to follow the prosecution’s recommendations for sentencing.

Guillermo Gibens-Acosta appealed his prison sentence after a plea bargain that dismissed a charge of kidnapping. He was convicted of enticing a child, the second charge in the original indictment.

The plea, from Mahaska County, came after Gibens-Acosta was accused of convincing two girls, “ages four and six, to go with him to a secluded hallway where he exposed himself and masturbated.”

The plea bargain included a recommendation that Gibens-Acosta be sentenced to no more than five years behind bars, with the prison sentence suspended, pay a fine and costs, and be on probation for five years. He was also ordered to complete a sexual offender program as part of his probation.

While the judge at Gibens-Acosta’s plea hearing voiced no concerns about the recommendations, a different judge presided at the actual sentencing. That judge rejected the recommendation and sent Gibens-Acosta to prison.

Gibens-Acosta appealed, claiming the court abused its discretion. The Iowa Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the sentence was within state guidelines and properly took into account factors like his rehabilitation potential and protection of society.

“The fact that a different judge presided at the sentencing hearing than Gibens-Acosta expected or desired, and different defense counsel represented him, does not aid his argument,” the court concluded.

The second case, from Appanoose County, has some strong similarities. Roger McDaniel appealed his prison sentence after being convicted of lascivious acts with a 10-year-old child. That conviction came after a plea bargain dropped a charge of second-degree sexual abuse.

Text Only
CNHI/Southeast Iowa
Obituaries
Featured Ads
Poll

The Iowegian wants readers to think about the solicitation ordinance that will prevent groups or individuals from entering a roadway to solicit money. The Centerville City Council in June by a 5-0 vote passed the first reading of just such an ordinance. Public pressure and during a subsequent special meeting, the council voted 3-2 to table the ordinance. A second special meeting to discuss the solicitation ordinance is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Thursday, Aug. 7 at City Hall. So, the question of the week is, "Do you or do you not support the ordinance to prevent solicitation of funds in city streets?"

A. I support the ordinance
B. I do not support the ordinance
C. Not sure
     View Results
Iowegian on Facebook