*1 692 portion right-of-way of the
owner to with Iowa Code section accordance 327G.77. Iowa, Appellee, STATE of two its claim on facts: It holds a bases v. immediately in the land permanent easement SUMMAGE, Appellant. right-of-way and it west of the is the fee No. 93-1968. adjacent strip of land owner of small easement. Supreme Court of Iowa. 20, Sept. 1995. quieted
The trial court title in 17, Rehearing property to the Denied Nov. 1995. defendant landowners and, immediately property west of the DOT’s think, rightly
we so. Mere entitlement to an does not fulfill section
easement' 327G.77’s
requirement that revert own the land adjacent Furthermore, property.
er of
quieting title landowners other than the
DOT, closely court more fulfilled the Reverting
intent behind section 327G.77.
property adjacent landowners ensures that parcel economically
a small will become more whole, part larger
useful and mini strip
mizes the risk that a small of land will in a used that is obnoxious or menac adjacent
ing to landowners. See Harvest
Queen Sanders, Mill & Co. v. Elevator 189 419,
Kan. P.2d summarize, affirm
To we the district judgment quieting
court’s title in the defen-
dants, Notelzah, denying compensa-
tion except property to Notelzah for taxes
paid good-faith in the belief was the owner.
Likewise, judg- we affirm court’s
ment for rent due the defendant landowners occupied
while Notelzah the land. We re-
mand, however, entry separate judg-
ments these pursuant latter two claims
Iowa Rule Civil Procedure 225. respects
district court.
AFFIRMED IN PART RE- AND APPEAL; IN PART
VERSED ON AF-
FIRMED ON RE- CROSS-APPEAL AND
MANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Erdahl, City, appellant.
Clemens Iowa *2 General, years Miller, Mary up drug-tax-stamp to five on the Attorney of J. Thomas General, Tabor, impose Attorney conviction. The court declined to the William Assistant required by H. Davis, County Attorney, and Realff sentence E. (1993) County Attorney, ap- 124.413 Ottesen, because Assistant Summage “prior not history did have a of pellee. did, It
involvement with however, run these sentences consecutive to one-year imposed eluding on con- a term the PER CURIAM. Additionally, the him viction. court ordered of challenges appeals’ the court The State pay twenty-dollar obey a fine for to to failure not court’s decision affirmance district Summage appealed. traffic a control device. to apply mandatory minimum sentence to appeal, argued Summage On district Summage’s drug refusing grant request court erred in to his 124.401(l)(e) It Iowa Code for substitute counsel. He his contended district court failed to state suffi- claims the for, primarily, trial counsel was ineffective mitigating circumstances on record. cient failing theory to follow his of defense. He appeals of affirm the decision of the court We also contended he was denied effective assis- judgment of the district court. and (1) tance his trial counsel failed to: when a prevent the introduction of evidence confi- Background Proceedings. I. Facts and police dential informant told officers he was a by charged Summage The trial infor- State (2) dealer; properly impeach a police possession of cocaine with intent mation with (3) testimony; police officer’s obtain all rec- in violation of Iowa Code section to deliver (4) photographs; properly and ords cross- 124.401(l)(c) (1993), drug tax failure to affix (5) fingerprint expert; and in- examine the 453B.12, stamps in violation of section elud- verify to his proper troduce the exhibit occu- ing a law enforcement vehicle marked official pation. cross-appealed, arguing The State of and disobedi- in violation impose failing the trial in to court erred in of an official traffic control device ence charge mandatory minimum sentence on Summage plead- violation of section 321.256. to possession of with intent deliver. guilty not to all four ed counts. appeals all trial, The affirmed on issues. day Summage request- court On the his court did not abuse It determined trial appoint that the court him new counsel. ed refusing appoint in to substitute its discretion counsel had been He maintained his defense Summage request- not counsel. It noted had accept plea trying get him to the State’s to day until of trial. substitute counsel bargain question had to ed failed various Hutchison, 33, 42 341 N.W.2d See witnesses he had recommended. Defense (Iowa 1983) (“Defendant proceed in a cannot spent she had considerable counsel stated will the trial and de- ready proceed. manner that obstruct to time on the and was power prop- prive the court of its inherent Summage had missed also stated that She procedures.”). It erly control and order appointments with her had several justi- Summage did not have further found possible list wit- provided her with his counsel, given fiable dissatisfaction with his Friday The until the before trial. nesses timely provide the names his failure to Summage’s request as district court treated going out and counsel’s actions request. witnesses motion to continue and denied Additionally, prepare for trial. of her jury Summage guilty of four The found Summage’s ineffective-assis- it found each Summage’s pro se crimes. The court denied to be without merit. tance-of-eounsel claims trial, pri- motion for new was based marily alleged ineffec- upon trial counsel’s also held the trial The court of , tiveness. failing did not abuse its discretion mandatory minimum sentence impose
The court sentenced that possession charge. determined years possession-with-intent- up to ten on the Summage’s involvement with term conviction and concurrent to-deliver was a drug dealings Remaining sufficient reason for III. Issues. impose exercising not to the mini- discretion thoroughly Summage’s We have reviewed challenged mum sentence. State concerning other claims counsel. review, reasoning by application for further correctly against were resolved him granted.
which we *3 court of and do not merit our further Accordingly, here. attention Mandatory II. Minimum Sentence. judgments and convictions entered jury’s verdicts. Pursuant 901.10: DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT sentencing person per-
A court AFFIRMED. 124.406, son’s first conviction under section 124.413, may, discretion, at or 902.7 except TERNUS, concur Justices person sentence the term less than ANDREASEN, JJ., LARSON who dis- mandatory mitigating minimum] if [the cir- sent. those cumstances exist and circumstances specifically are stated in the record. TERNUS, Justice, dissenting. An abuse of discretion statute will respectfully I applying dissent. only grounds found if it is “exercised on 901.10, the court must an make initial deter- clearly or for reasons or untenable to an mination that the current is clearly extent unreasonable.” drug defendant’s first conviction and then (Iowa 1991). Neary, 470 N.W.2d mitigating find an additional circumstance to justify mandatory
Here the court chose a sentence less waive than the minimum. I see no real sentence because distinction between prior history had “no conclusion that involve defendant had no conviction, prior drug drug prerequisite is ment with which State claims application court abused its discretion with this sen prior qualification drug dealing, involvement tence because the threshold mitigating was used as a person’s circumstance. waiver —the first conviction—is mitigating giv same as the circumstance I legislature believe the intended that prior history drug dealing. en—no mitigating there be circumstances in addition reasons, give claims court must to the fact that the current conviction is the apart from the defendant’s first-offender sta defendant’s first documented involvement tus, justify disagree. the waiver. We drugs. with I would vacate the decision of of appeals, reverse the Clearly person whether a has ever been the district court and remand for resentene- different, quite convicted of a is crime ing. factually, from whether the record reveals a prior history involvement. We view independent grounds these as for exercise of ANDREASEN, JJ., join LARSON and the court’s discretion under section 901.10. this dissent. Neary,
As we said in see no “[w]e reason why we should construe section 901.10 to something
mean other than what it states.”
Id. There nothing is in section 901.10 to where,
limit a court’s exercise of discretion
here, only a first redeeming offender’s trait
is his lack of drug involvement. Had legislature disqualify intended to such
prior history circumstance, mitigating as a
could have said so.