Therefore, the district court had discretion to have the sentences for the possession of lithium and escape convictions either run consecutive or concurrent to the other. See State v. Hogge, 420 N.W.2d 458, 459 (Iowa 1998) (stating the district court has authority and discretion to order sentences to run consecutively (citing Jones, 299 N.W.2d at 682-83)). We find that the record is clear the district court was under the erroneous belief that the sentences for possession of lithium and escape were required by statute to run consecutively. During the plea proceeding, the district court advised Hale that "the escape has to be consecutive to the other charge" and if he was sentenced to prison it would be for ten years because the court "wouldn't have any choice.