7-16-2023 DIP NEWS

In May 2022, David Hanson Jr. posted, “Welp, time to drive by the schools with my AR-15, full clip,” on a social media site. He was charged with and pled guilty to a threat of terrorism in violation of Iowa Code section 708A.5 (2022). In sentencing him to prison, the district court focused on the nature of his crime in this era of school shootings.

According to Hanson, the court abused its discretion by considering only the nature of the offense. We affirm.

Sentencing Proceeding
After accepting Hanson’s guilty plea, the district court ordered a pre-sentence investigation report. The report detailed the circumstances of the crime, along with Hanson’s criminal history; employment and family circumstances; mental-health history; and substance-abuse history. The pre-sentence investigator recommended a suspended sentence and probation. The court opened Hanson’s sentencing hearing by stating that it had reviewed the report and dictating the investigator’s recommendation into the record. The court then asked for the State’s sentencing recommendation.
The prosecutor pushed for the maximum sentence, highlighting the circumstances of the crime and Hanson’s claim, coupled with his apology, “that his actions were a joke or not anything that he would have actually done.” The prosecutor continued: I personally, could not know if Mr. Hanson was really wanting to drive by a school with a gun on May 31st, nor do I know if he was joking. What I do know is that we’ve had more school shootings in our country in 2022 than the total in 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021, and we have two-and-a-half months left of this year. I also know people
go to take their kids to school every day, myself included, and hope they come home safe in our arms, and so we cannot tolerate these types of school comments. . . .
. . . Mr. Hanson is almost 43 years old, and I would say he should have known better. I think as a general deterrence to everybody in our community, Mr. Hanson needs to be sent to prison for an in determinant time of up to 5 years.

In contrast, Hanson advocated for the recommendation in the pre-sentence investigation report, pointing out that his post “was not a public forum post, it was on a private group” with about 1000 members. Defense counsel told the court, Hanson had apologized and understood “that he should not have done what he did, especially when explaining to him the current social climate towards this course of action.” And she noted that “when they searched his home, there were no weapons of any kind.” Finally, counsel directed the court’s attention to three letters of recommendation, one of which was from Hanson’s mental-health provider. Counsel concluded her remarks by stating: “He is willing to do anything that probation requires of him, including the residential facility. . . . [F]or all of those reasons, he would be asking that the Court suspend the sentence and put him on formal probation. . . .”
Right after defense counsel was finished, the district court stated:

THE COURT: Formal probation is not appropriate. You don’t make this kind of threats in this current environment or at any time. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, I do.

THE COURT: You’re not a parent.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

THE COURT: You don’t know what their fear is as a parent,
when they wake up in the morning to hear that somebody has made a threat to drive by a school with an AK-47, an AR-15, a shotgun, or any other kind of gun. We place our children in school every day, thinking that they’re going to be safe. It’s an environment that is supposed to be enveloped in love, confidence, and safety. So, what’s
the point? All of us would home school our children if that wasn’t the point. What a terrible thing to do here. Terrible. And [the prosecutor] is correct. Nobody knows if that was a joke. But when you hear that as a parent, all you want to do is hunker down, hide your children, and not let them go anywhere for fear that somebody who’s having a bad day is going to take it out on an innocent child. So, 5 years prison—

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, one moment. He’s technically entitled to allocution before the Court pronounces the sentence.

THE COURT: Is there anything you’d like to say?

THE DEFENDANT: You’re right. There’s no excuse for it, but I guess I wouldn’t shoot anybody. I’m deeply sorry, and I would apologize to the group in person if I could, but I know I couldn’t, it was a private group, I meant nothing by it. There’s no, I don’t even know how to shoot a gun, I have no gun, I can’t even do it, a dumb thing I admit, very wrong, however, but I understand that it’s wrong.

THE COURT: I understand.

THE DEFENDANT: Everything she showed here I’m not—I’m not a violent person, it should show that, and I’m a felon and cannot have a gun.

THE COURT: That really isn’t the point. There are plenty of people in this country that are felons and shouldn’t have guns, that have mental health histories and shouldn’t have guns, and there are children that shouldn’t have guns, and I mean children in the form of under age 18. Somehow they get them. They aren’t concerned about the laws. They don’t care about going through proper procedures to get them. People get them, and people are harmed. A child may die, a child may be injured, the parents have to live on after that occurs. And that’s a lifetime of suffering. You can’t—

THE DEFENDANT: But I—but I—

THE COURT: You can’t fix that. You can’t fix that when a child sends—or is going to school because a parent sends them. You don’t understand the guilt a parent feels about that. They couldn’t be there to protect their child. So I can’t, I can’t give you probation, Mr. Hanson. That’s not appropriate.

THE DEFENDANT: But I can ask for that.

THE COURT: That’s all right. You can disagree with me, and you have the right to appeal, which I’m going to tell you, but you’re going to prison. 5 years. I will not impose a fine. It will be suspended.

The court memorialized its decision in a written sentencing order, which in boilerplate fashion described its “reasons for sentence” as follows: “The court
determines that the above sentence is most likely to protect society and rehabilitate the defendant based upon the nature of the offense, defendant’s prior record, and the recommendation of the parties and for the reasons stated in the [presentence investigation report], if any.”
II. Analysis

He argues the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to prison because “the court singled out the nature of the offense and rejected defense counsel’s request for probation. He had even to be reminded of Hanson’s right to address the court.” While the State agrees that “the court emphasized the nature of the offense and attendant circumstances,” it argues the court did not stop there and also considered the presentence investigation report, Hanson’s criminal history, his age, and the circumstances of his family; the consequences of his actions; and Hanson’s need for accountability and a chance for reform.

The Iowa Appeals Court affirmed his case.