State v. Cupples (1967)

Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241 , 69 S.Ct. 1079 , 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); Pennsylvania v. Ashe, 302 U.S. 51 , 58 S.Ct. 59 , 82 L.Ed. 43 (1937); State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967) ("The punishment should fit both the crime and the individual.").

State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1196 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 279 (1967) and authorities.

The punish ment 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)).

State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967).

In State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967), this court committed Iowa courts to the concept of individualized sentencing.

The investigator recommended defendant's placement " * * * in a semi-structured environment, such as offered at the Women's Facility, in Des Moines, Iowa * * *." The sentencing court also stated on the record he was taking into consideration the fact the offense defendant pleaded guilty to was a "* * * serious crime, a crime of violence * * *." We are not required to determine here whether defendant's refusal to authorize investigation into certain aspects of her prior activ…

State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967).

See State v. Valenzuela. 101 Ariz. 230 , 418 P.2d 386, 389 (1966); People v. Morales, 60 Cal. Rptr. 671 (Cal. App. 1967); State v. Dunn, 434 P.2d 88, 94 (Idaho 1967); People v. Taylor, 33: Ill.2d 417, 211 N.E.2d 673, 677 (1965); State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967); State v. Caffey, 365 S.W.2d 607, 610 (Mo. 1963) (limited situations); State v. Ransom, 182 Neb. 243 , 153 N.W.2d 916, 920 (1967); State v. Ford, 92 N.J.

When sentencing a criminal defendant, “[a] court ‘should weigh and consider all pertinent matters . . . including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities[,] and chances of his reform.’” State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa 2019) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)); Iowa Code § 901.5 .

State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979) (quoting State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)).

State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).

See, e.g., State v. Voshell, 216 N.W.2d 309, 310 (Iowa 1974) (“[T]he sentencing judge is required to make his own judicial determination of what the punishment should be.”); State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967) (“The courts owe a duty to the public as much as to defendant in determining a proper sentence.

To determine the proper sentence, the court should weigh and consider “the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform.” State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).

Iowa Code section 901.5 provides that courts should consider which sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others.” When evaluating those considerations, courts “should weigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities[…

State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).

In determining the appropriate sentence for a given criminal conviction, the court should consider “the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform.” State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)). “[O]ur task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on unt…

See, e.g., Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986, 1992 (2014) (“Punishment is justified under one or more of three principal rationales: rehabilitation, deterrence, and retribution.”); State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83 , 86–88 (Iowa 2005) (discussing remorse as a sentencing factor); State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740 , 744–45 (Iowa 1999) (considering defendant’s mental health in sentencing); State v. Wright, 340 7 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Iowa 1983) (“Part of the court’s sentencing responsibil…

In applying its discretion, the district court is required to “consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform.” State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).

State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999) (quoting State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)).

The punishment should fit both the crime and the individual.” State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979) (citing State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)). “[R]ehabilitation and community protection are foremost concerns in the determination.

Thus, “ ‘[t]he punishment 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 fixed policy to govern every case.” ’ ” Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d at 396 (quoting State v. Jackson, 204 N.W.2d 915, 916 (Iowa 1973)); accord State v. McKeever, 27…

Thus, “ ‘[t]he punishment should fit both the crime and the individual.’ ” State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979) (quoting State v. 17 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 fixed policy to govern every case.” ’ ” Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d at 396 (quoting State v. Jackson, 204 N.W.2d 915, 916 (Iowa 1973)); accord State v. McKeeve…

August, 589 N.W.2d at 744 (quoting State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967)); accord Iowa Code § 901.5 (providing that an appropriate sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others”).

August, 589 N.W.2d at 744 (quoting State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967)); accord Iowa Code § 901.5 (providing that an appropriate sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others”).

The court in applying its discretion “ ‘should weigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform.’ ” 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)).

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 Iowa Code § 901.5 (requiring that the court consider which sentence “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others”).

Id. (citing State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967)).

Criminal Law § 1980; State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967)].

State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344, 348 (Iowa 1975); State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa 1975); State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967).

State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967).

State v. Bragg, Iowa, 192 N.W.2d 810 ; State v. Cole, Iowa, 168 N.W.2d 37, 40 ; State v. Patterson, Iowa, 161 N.W.2d 736, 737 ; State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1196, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 .

See also State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967).

See State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Iowa 1975) (“In 1907 ... the responsibility 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)).

See State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1197 , 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1967) (citation omitted); 24 C.J.S.

See State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192 , 152 N.W.2d 277 (1967).

See also State v. Dalton, 254 Iowa 96, 101 , 116 N.W.2d 451, 454 , and State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192 , 152 N.W.2d 277 , 280 where language identical in substance was used in rejecting a similar contention.

See State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967) (providing the sentencing court “should weigh and consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and chances of his reform”); Iowa Code § 901.5 (2023) (statutorily directing the court to provide “for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant”).

See, e.g., State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).

See State v. Cupples, 152 N.W.2d 277, 280 (Iowa 1967).