Opinion
No. 5-769 / 05-0267
Filed November 9, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Robert J. Dull, District Associate Judge.
Richard Wayne Koele seeks a new sentence, arguing the district court failed to give reasons why it imposed consecutive sentences. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa O'Rourke, County Attorney, and Coleman J. McAllister, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vogel and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Richard Wayne Koele argues his sentence for operating while intoxicated, third offense, should be vacated because the district court did not give any reasons why it made his sentence in this case consecutive to his sentence in another case, rather than concurrent. After our review for the correction of errors at law, see State v. Wise, 697 N.W.2d 489, 491 (Iowa Ct.App. 2005), we affirm.
At sentencing, the prosecutor indicated "the main issue" would be concurrent or consecutive sentences. Noting this was Koele's sixth conviction for operating while intoxicated, he argued for consecutive sentences "to protect the public." The defense sought concurrent sentences, as well as placement in a residential treatment facility. The court, prior to imposing its sentence, stated that "the paramount consideration for sentencing is protection of the public."
While the sentencing court must state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, those reasons need only be detailed enough to allow review of the court's action. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). Moreover, the court's reasons for imposing consecutive sentences may be gleaned "from the reasons for the overall sentencing plan." State v. Delaney, 526 N.W.2d 170, 178 (Iowa Ct.App. 1994). Here, the prosecutor recommended consecutive sentences "to protect the public." The court stated "protection of the public" was "the paramount consideration for sentencing," and adopted the State's recommendation for consecutive sentences. In doing so, the court sufficiently set forth reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637, 641-42 (Iowa 2002).