Judge won’t consider new sentence in kidnapping case

A judge has decided against reconsidering a prison sentence for a Sioux City man convicted of kidnapping following a review of his prison conduct.

Dayton Sabasta, 38, was sentenced to 40 years in prison after he was convicted by a Marshall County jury of second-degree kidnapping, second-degree theft, trespassing and extortion.

He was sentenced by District Court Judge James Ellefson in January 2013 following a three-week trial.

Ellefson in January ordered a hearing to determine if Sabasta’s sentence should be reconsidered. Sabasta did not file a request for reconsideration of the sentence, according to court records.

Marshall County Attorney Jennifer Miller said it’s within the court’s power to reconsider a sentence without a request from the defendant, but she couldn’t recall it happening in her 12 years as the county attorney.

Sabasta was initially arrested in Marshalltown on Aug. 17, 2012 after a high-speed pursuit.

A Sioux City woman who was taken against her will to Marshalltown phoned police after making an escape. Marshall County Sheriff’s deputies apprehended Sabasta, who was on parole for a federal drug conviction, hiding in the closet of a vacant home at 2483 Oaks Ave.

Sabasta had also coerced the victim to Western Union, making her turn over about $1,600.

The kidnapping victim, along with her vehicle, were reported missing in Sioux City nearly a week before she was able to escape.

In a court document filed Monday, Ellefson wrote that an April hearing is cancelled following a review of Sabasta’s conduct during his first 14 months of incarceration.

The Iowa Department of Corrections issued the report that was to include Sabasta’s conduct while incarcerated, his progress in any programs intended for rehabilitation and the department’s recommendation as to whether his sentence should be modified.

According to court documents Ellefson said “there is nothing in the report that suggests a reconsideration of sentence would be justified. The report points strongly to the conclusion that the existing sentence should be left in place.”