Opinion
No. 1-911 / 01-0442.
Filed January 28, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, JOHN A. NAHRA, Judge.
Defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to three counts of second degree sexual abuse and three counts of lascivious acts with a child. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, William E. Davis, County Attorney, and Julie Walton, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by VOGEL, P. J., and MILLER and EISENHAUER, JJ.
Robert Leroy Rosenow appeals from his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to three counts of second degree sexual abuse, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3 (1999), and three counts of lascivious acts with a child, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8. Rosenow contends the trial court failed to state the rationale for imposing consecutive sentences. We review the court's sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999).
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(3)(d) requires the court to state on the record its reason for selecting a particular sentence. This rule is satisfied if the court indicates which concerns motivated it to select the particular sentence imposed and those reasons are sufficient to demonstrate it exercised its discretion. State v. Garrow, 480 N.W.2d 256, 259 (Iowa 1992). Because the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences may be found from the particular reasons expressed for the overall sentencing plan, we look to all parts of the record to find the supporting reasons. State v. Delaney, 526 N.W.2d 170, 178 (Iowa Ct. App. 1994).
Here, the district court found that Rosenow would not benefit from rehabilitation and, instead, a prison sentence was necessary to "shock" him before the rehabilitative process could begin. The court also found Rosenow to be a serious risk to those around him and determined that prison would be required to protect the community. Although it would be better if the trial court had specifically stated he was imposing consecutive sentences and why, it is clear from the record the court imposed consecutive sentences in executing an overall sentencing plan. Therefore, we find the reasons were sufficient and the court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.
AFFIRMED.