State v. Cupples

Decision Date11 July 1967
Docket NumberNo. 52465,52465
Citation260 Iowa 1192,152 N.W.2d 277
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Daniel Lee CUPPLES, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Clarke A. Pasley, Ames, for appellant.

Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., David A. Elderkin, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Charles Vanderbur, Ames, County Atty., for appellee.

MOORE, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether the trial court abused the discretion vested in it by Code section 718.1 which provides one convicted of forgery 'shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than ten years or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding one year, or fined not exceeding one thousand dollars.' Following defendant's plea of guilty of forgery and a pre-sentence investigation the trial court sentenced him to a term not exceeding ten years in the men's reformatory at Anamosa and included in the order a recommendation defendant receive a parole at the earliest possible date. Defendant does not attack any of the proceedings in the lower court and does not deny his guilt. He challenges only the severity of the punishment imposed by the sentence and asks us to modify it or remand his case to the trial court for resentencing.

Defendant with four other young men and two young women during the summer of 1966 carried on a series of forgeries and uttering of forged checks in central and eastern Iowa. They thereby obtained money and merchandise totaling approximately seven thousand dollars. Their operation included cashing checks of less than $20 each in Altoona, Ames, Boone, Davenport, Des Moines, Marshalltown, Oskaloosa and Ottumwa.

On August 15, 1966 defendant, Majorie Jane Long, Jerry Robson and two others of juvenile age went to Ames where a pad of blank checks was picked up at the First National Bank. Miss Long wrote several forged checks and made them payable to Terry Colwell. Each was for $18.75. Terry Colwell was known to defendant. When necessary, Colwell's driver's license was used by the person cashing a check under an arrangement that Colwell would claim he had lost his driver's license if questioned by the police.

Defendant on August 15 cashed five of the checks written by Miss Long on which he endorsed Colwell's name and obtained cash and merchandise at business establishments in Ames. The proceeds were divided between the parties to the scheme.

On September 7, 1966 defendant was arrested at his home in Newton under a charge of forgery. He was taken to Ames, arraigned in Ames Municipal Court with counsel, waived preliminary hearing and was bound over to the Story County Grand Jury.

Thereafter defendant freely and voluntarily admitted his check activities as described above. He told the investigating police officers he thought if caught he would only be required to pay the checks. He was unaware of the forgery law. At all times after his arrest he admitted his transgressions and made no attempt to conceal the facts.

On September 16, 1966 a County Attorney's Information was filed against defendant, Daniel Lee Cupples, charging him with forgery. A like charge was also filed against Marjorie Jane Long and Jerry Robson. They were represented by different attorneys.

On arraignment defendant entered a plea of guilty. His able counsel in a strong plea for leniency advised the court defendant was 18 years of age, single, living with his parents at Newton, a 1966 high school graduate and engaged to be married in the spring of 1967. During high school he had worked at a junk yard. After graduation he worked at Maytag as an inspector and was earing $440 per month until his discharge after being arrested. Defendant had no pressing need for money and was unable to explain why he became involved in the check writing. Defendant claimed he had received only approximately $200 from all the checks. Counsel acknowledged investigation of the check scheme was continuing and was unable to say what disposition would be made in other counties. Story was the first county to break the case. Counsel advised the court defendant had a juvenile court record.

The trial court stated he did not know what to do with defendant and directed the parole officer to make a pre-sentence investigation of defendant, Miss Long and Robson. The latter two had also entered guilty pleas that day.

On September 28, 1966 after receiving the pre-sentence investigation report the court reconvened the sentencing hearing.

The pre-sentence investigation report by a parole agent contained the information which defendant's attorney had related earlier and showed defendant had been in trouble with the law since he was nine years of age. He had been arrested for throwing rocks at trains, putting rocks on the tracks, stealing a bicycle, damaging lanudary machines, investigation of larceny, auto theft, reckless driving, operating a motor vehicle while license under suspension and speeding.

Defendant came from a good family consisting of his parents, three brothers and two sisters. His high school record was not good but he took vocational training during his senior year and graduated although near the bottom of his class. The report stated defendant was very remorseful and wanted to make amends.

Before pronouncing sentence the trial court said: 'I want to tell you that the Court is in a very difficult position. I am trying to do what is right in these three cases. I have had a pre-sentencing investigation and I know that the only thing I can do is to pass sentence this morning.'

Later the court asked defendant if he had anything to say to which defendant responded he would like to have another chance. The court then said: 'I would like to give you another chance and it almost breaks my heart to have to pronounce sentence on you young people, but if I should give you another chance these other counties won't. * * * I am going to have to treat all of you the same. It is going to be your sentence, under the statute, not to exceed ten years at Anamosa. I am going to recommend you be given a very, very early parole, which could be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
48 cases
  • State v. Grosh
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • January 15, 1986
    ...record. People v. Adkins, 41 Ill.2d 297, 242 N.E.2d 258 (1968); People v. Metcalf, Mich.App., 236 N.W.2d 573 (1975); State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 152 N.W.2d 277 (1967). Conger, 268 N.W.2d at 801-02. "A sentencing judge's access to information should be almost completely unfettered in or......
  • State v. Remmers
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • November 23, 1977
    ...as to defendant in determining a proper sentence. The punishment should fit both the crime and the individual." State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280. (Emphasis The foregoing language from the Cupples case was quoted with approval by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. O......
  • Greiman v. Hodges
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Iowa
    • January 15, 2015
    ...of determining the length of a prison sentence was shifted from the trial court to the board of parole.”) (citing State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1196, 152 N.W.2d 277 (1967) ). Thus, it appears clear that, at least under the facts of this case, the responsibility for ensuring that Plaintif......
  • State v. Lathrop
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • April 23, 2010
    ...should fit both the crime and the individual.'" State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979) (quoting State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967)); accord State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999). "`"The court is not permitted to arbitrarily establish a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT