Opinion
No. 2-620 / 01-1641
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, James L. Beeghly and Thomas N. Bower, Judges.
Defendant appeals his sentence alleging the trial court failed to state its reasons for the sentence. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda Myers, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., Hayden, and Habhab, S.J.
Senior judges assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
On September 13, 2001, defendant pled guilty to the charges of stalking, a Class D felony; harassment, a serious misdemeanor; and interference with official acts, a misdemeanor. He negotiated a plea agreement with the county attorney and was sentenced on September 19, 2001. He was sentenced to five years on the Class D felony and thirty days on the misdemeanor charges. All sentences were suspended. The sentencing court pronounced sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. The court did not state its reasons for the sentence. The defendant appeals. We affirm pursuant to the law and the judicial reasoning in State v. Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728, 729 (Iowa 1983).
In that case the defendant and State entered into a plea agreement. It was explained to the court and the court accepted the agreement. Id. Everyone agreed to be bound by the plea agreement and the court sentenced defendant precisely as the agreement contemplated. Id.
The sentence of imprisonment was therefore not the product of the exercise of trial court discretion but of the process of giving effect to the parties' agreement. Under these circumstances, the purpose of a statement of reasons for imposition of the sentence would serve no practical purpose. The rationale of rule 22(3)(d) is inapposite, and any failure by the court to furnish reasons for the sentence was harmless.
Id.
As in Snyder, the sentence imposed in the case before us was not the product of the court's exercise of discretion but giving effect to the parties' agreement. The court's failure to furnish reasons for defendant's sentence was harmless. Also, there was no abuse of discretion.
We affirm the district court.
AFFIRMED.