Summary
concluding the removal of a sentencing enhancement did not require the defendant's presence and the defendant's argument that he "could have enlightened the court on whether a seventy-percent minimum sentence should have applied and whether he was subject to DNA testing" was not grounds for allowing his presence because both components of his original sentence were mandatory
Summary of this case from Everett v. Iowa District Court For Black Hawk Cnty.Opinion
No. 12–2273.
2014-06-11
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Duane Luverne YATES, Defendant–Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, Judge. Duane Yates appeals an order denying his request to be present at a resentencing hearing and certain nunc pro tunc orders. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney General, Patrick Jennings, County Attorney, and Terry C. Ganzel, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.