*1 rate-making equa- applying IV. = profit) X rate of (rate tion base return Iowa, Appellee, STATE of profits found that of the the commission be company during period the test company’s dealing because of the increased THOMPSON, Appellant. Robert Paul Directory Company, another GTE sub- sidiary. Directory Company, in addition to No. 61951. publishing telephone directories advertising Supreme also sells in the direc- company, Court of Iowa. tories. The commission determined that Feb. Directory Company collected unreasonable profits company. Accordingly, from the profits
the amount of unreasonable were generated to the income for the com-
added through the sale of advertisements in
pany Again the
the directories. commission used standard to determine the reasona- cost X profits of the and a rate base
bleness = analysis. rate of return income company argued,
The as it had in Automatic, profit-
connection with
per-sale method be used. The commission rejected argument.
again Under our review, outlined, previously
standard of we company challenge has failed in its
find
to this determination. Bearing
V. in mind that the bur proof upon we company,
den of say
cannot the actions the commis any way 17A.19(8),
sion in violated § The claim of an unconstitutional
Code.
taking property is derivative of the claim employed by
that the methods the commis were We have
sion unreasonable. found
they were not. evidence for
There was substantial findings. is sub
the commission’s Evidence “.
stantial when reasonable adequate
mind it as to reach a accept would ” City of Davenport . conclusion. . Bd., Emp.
Pub. Rel.
(Iowa 1978). reversing was in error We therefore reverse the commission.
trial court and remand case for an order
reinstating the decision of the commission.
REVERSED AND REMANDED. concur, except
All Justices REYNOLD J., ALLBEE, J., C.
SON, who take no
part.
371 years two or a fine not to exceed $5000 both. The district correctional services rec- ommended a suspended jail sentence with probation; the prosecutor made no recom- mendation. The Magistrate Judicial sen- tenced defendant years to two in the re- formatory. He felt stated he a substantial was appropriate term and that a state insti- tution would offer rehabilitative services defendant needed. He also stated: charge
The brings the defendant be- fore the County Clinton District Court was originally a of charge burglary in the degree, second felony. a class C There- through after negotiations with the Clin- ton County Attorney’s office the charge was reduced to that of theft in the third degree, aggravated an misdemeanor of- fense. The felony class C possi- carries a ble term of years. ten An aggravated possible misdemeanor a carries term of years. two It is the opinion of the Court charge reduction of the from a class aggravated C to an misde- justify meanor does not the Court’s al- probation lowance of or deferred sen- tence. appealed.
Defendant point I. We first out that this case is not challenge a to a court’s discre- Clinton, Wolfe, Jr., appellant. John J. Peckenschneider, tion under State v. 236 Turner, Gen., Atty. Richard William R. C. (Iowa), challenge N.W.2d 344 or a to the Gen., Armstrong, and Mervin D. Atty. Asst. responsibility of a court to con- Woodin, County Atty., Asst. Clinton Clin- all sider facts which will assist the court in ton, appellee. exercise the of its discretion. Kendall, This court stated in 167 (Iowa): UHLENHOPP, Justice. It was the the trial of court to propriety This of sen- appeal involves any ascertain and facts that all would plea tencing procedure employed on a of assist in proper exercise of its discre- guilty third-degree theft under 714.- §§ tion in fixing sentence, 1(1) 714.2(3), 1977 Supplement. and Code whether in or out of the record. Thompson
Defendant Robert Paul we on review second-degree originally charged weigh pertinent bur- all and consider glary. burglary proper sentence, He in his matters in determining did not admit original including offense, statement to officers or in subse- nature of circumstances, quent proceedings. attending In accordance with a defendant’s age, character bargain prosecutor propensities reduced the plea chances of theft, his o charge third-degree carries reform. The courts owe a which penalty a not as much imprisonment to exceed as to defendant in iter- tencing, punish original not on the basis of the mining proper sentence. reduction, and the the crime and the but on the basis fit both ment should brought of the facts which are out before individual. Magistrate relating and, to the crime— case concerns the II. The course, pertinent relating the other data act on the possibility that the accused’s suggest the accused. We do not what may have constituted a question occasionin *3 the sentence should be. than the one to which he higher crime AND REMANDED REVERSED FOR may, court guilty. A pleaded RESENTENCING. limits, within a severe sen statutory impose ground the that tence for a lower crime on HARRIS, All Justices concur except higher committed a actually the accused REES, LARSON, JJ., ALLBEE and who involved if the facts crime on the occasion dissent. commit the court show the accused before HARRIS, (dissenting). Justice or the defendant ad higher ted the crime prosecutor orig not the mits it—whether or reversed, The trial court is not for any higher crime. This is inally. charged the discretion, error or abuse of simply but part making punishment of the fit the alluding to the fact that defendant had 24B Criminal Law 1980 at crime. C.J.S. § originally charged been greater with a of- (“The give regard should due court ample grounds fense. There were sup- of the offense and the attend to the nature port Explaining the sentence. the basis for . . . . Punishment ing circumstances the sentence the trial court described de- commensurate with the fendant’s always be extensive criminal record as fol- lows: crime”). may A court not how- impose a severe sentence for a lower ever . . The defendant’s criminal his- ground on the that the accused actu- crime tory showed numerous arrests which were higher the committed a crime unless ally 28, 1976, alcoholic related. Also on March the court show the accused
facts before there is charge petty shown a of larceny or higher the crime the defend- committed judgment and that the was by satisfied prosecutor origi- it—even if the ant admits serving defendant’s May a sentence. On nally charged higher the crime and reduced 21, 1977, charge a second of petty larceny charge. controlling defendant; consideration is lodged against the was however in whether the accused fact committed the the records show the case to pend- be still ” crime, ing. . . prosecutor not whether the higher originally charged original charge it. The gave The trial court a second reason for higher may may crime not have of the denying probation: the defendant had a true, and the accused does not admit been problem and, with alcoholism the trial court higher charge by pleading guilty to the felt, a state institution could accord defend- lower ant services needed for his alcoholism. Certainly
III. We are troubled in the there can be no claim that the any way defendant was in as to Magistrate appears to misled case because the court’s intentions. accepting Before his thought justified grant have he was not plea the explained to the defend- in view ing probation or deferred sentence ant: original charge and reduction higher of the
thereof, distinguished from the facts re as “THE Okay, COURT: and that’s one actually lating to the offense defendant thing understand, I you fully want that opinion committed: “It is the of the Court charge, this is a reduced the Court is free to of the from a class that a reduction you appropriate. sentence as the Court sees aggravated to an misdemeanor C Court, You arguments you can make justify not the Court’s allowance of does can ask the things Court for certain but it’s probation or deferred sentence.” We thus sentencing complete- Court’s decision on court resen- Do ly. you return the case to district understand that? Yes,
“THE DEFENDANT:
sir.”
The trial court and we on review should
weigh and
pertinent
consider all
matters in
right
It is clear that
the trial court was
determining proper sentence, including the
was originally
on the facts. The defendant
offense,
nature
the attending circum-
trial court indicated. The
charged as the
stances,
age,
not,
character
question
majority suggests,
pro-
is
as the
pensities
whether the defendant
shown to have
and chances of his reform. The
higher
question
committed the
crime. The
courts owe a
to the
as much as
is whether
court should be
to defendant
in determining a proper sen-
commenting
reversed for
on the fact
punishment
tence. The
should fit both the
charge was
made.
crime and the individual.
[Authority.]”
Delano,
I.
161 N.W.2d
Where,
here,
as
probation
requested
is
(Iowa 1968) we stated our standard for re
“
and denied we have said:
‘From these
judgment
view: “A
in a criminal case will
pronouncements it is clear that a trial court
sentencing pro
not be disturbed because of
has a
*4
to hear an application
parole
showing
cedures unless there is a
of abuse
but has wide discretion in what must be
discretion, procedural
prejudicial
conduct
considered in granting or denying the appli-
defendant,
which
circumstances
manifest
”
cation.
[Authority.]’
Peckenschneider,
injustice,
inherent unfairness and
or con
supra,
II. Defendant
89 S.Ct.
21
(1969);
contends
L.Ed.2d 448
S.,
abused its discretion and denied him due Humes v. U.
(10
L.Ed.2d 294
without
233,
(D.C.
guilty plea or dismissed in plea charges. 17.S. v. Ma-
guilty on other 1974); (10 Cir. U.
jors, 490 F.2d
(2
1965).
Doyle,
S. Marines, 535
The case of U. S. v.
F.2d
(10
1976)
ques
the identical
presented
Cir.
JENSEN, Appellant
Merle D.
felony charge
tion involved here. A
Cross-Appellee,
exchange
guilty plea
for a
on a
dismissed
The sen
substituted misdemeanor
that de
tencing court considered
fact
Schreck,
Dennis SCHRECK and Jerome
*5
originally charged with a
fendant had been
Appellees
Cross-Appellants.
the maximum sen
imposed
and then
This was held
tence for the misdemeanor.
Schreck,
Dennis SCHRECK and Jerome
see Austin v.
permissible.
to be
In accord
Appellees
Cross-Appellants,
S.,
(9
1969);
v.
U.
334 U.S.
S.Ct.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
(1948), a sentence was overturned because
21,
Feb.
con-
materially untrue information was
Tucker,
In U.
v.
404 U.S.
sidered.
S.
(1972),
S.Ct. improper held
ing procedure was because obtained in violation of the de-
convictions right to counsel
fendant’s constitutional
were considered. A defendant should have opportunity to comment on the truth of explicitly if relied on
any such information Read,
by the trial court. U. S. v.
534 F.2d
S.,
(9
1976);
v. U.
858 Cir. Post Rosner,
(8
1974);
(2 1973); Espinoza, 481 F.2d Cir. U. S. (5 1973). in the
553 Cir. Defendant surrounding deny
case does not the facts deny Neither does he
the earlier re- greater
the fact
duced.