Opinion
No. 5-255 / 04-0940
Filed April 13, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Joe E. Smith (sentencing) and Louise M. Jacobs (restitution order), District Associate Judges.
Lee Anthony Glover appeals from the judgment and sentence imposed following his pleas of guilty, and from the district court's refusal to proceed with a restitution hearing. JUDGMEMT AND SENTENCE AFFIRMED, REMANDED FOR RESTITUTION HEARING.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Christina Gonzalez, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Hecht, JJ.
Defendant Lee Anthony Glover appeals from the judgment and sentence entered by the district court following his guilty pleas to three serious misdemeanor offenses. He claims the sentencing court erred by failing to state sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. He also claims the district court erred in failing to conduct a restitution hearing. We affirm Glover's convictions and remand for a restitution hearing.
Glover pled guilty to two counts of leaving the scene of a personal injury accident in violation of Iowa Code section 321.261 (2003) and one count of theft in the fourth degree in violation of Iowa Code section 714.2(4). The district court sentenced Glover to three consecutive one-year sentences.
Glover first claims the district court erred by failing to state sufficient reasons for the imposition of consecutive sentences. We may address challenges to the legality of a sentence for the first time on appeal. State v. Dann, 591 N.W.2d 635, 637 (Iowa 1999). The district court must "state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence." Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)( d). The court must provide specific reasoning regarding why consecutive sentences are warranted in the particular case. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). "Although the reasons do not need to be detailed, they must be sufficient to allow appellate review of the discretionary action" of imposing consecutive sentences. Id. The reasons, however, are not required to be specifically tied to the imposition of consecutive sentences, but may be found from the particular reasons expressed for the overall sentencing plan. State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989). Thus, we look to all parts of the record to find the supporting reasons. Id.
In exercising its sentencing discretion, "the district court is to weigh all pertinent matters in determining a proper sentence including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant's age, character, and propensities or chances for reform." State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995) (quoting State v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994)).
In this case, the district court gave reasons for imposing consecutive sentences orally and in its written order. At Glover's sentencing hearing, the district court noted that it imposed consecutive sentences to "provide reasonable protection of the public." The sentencing court then went on to discuss the nature of Glover's criminal offenses, his prior record, his disregard of the law, and his failure to learn from prior experiences. In its written order imposing judgment and sentence, the court stated that the consecutive sentences imposed "will provide reasonable protection of the public." We conclude that the district court provided sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. See State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637, 641-42 (Iowa 2002); State v. Jacobs, 644 N.W.2d 695, 700 (Iowa 2001). Accordingly, we affirm the defendant's judgment and sentence.
The court also stated that probation was unwarranted.
Glover next contends the district court erred by failing to conduct a restitution hearing. The record reveals Glover sought to challenge the amount of restitution ordered in this case by filing a timely request for a hearing to contest the amount of victim restitution. The district court believed it did not have jurisdiction to conduct a hearing because Glover had filed a notice of appeal.
The State acknowledges that Glover has preserved his restitution challenge in district court and concedes that the defendant should have an opportunity for a restitution hearing with the assistance of counsel. We agree that Glover is entitled to a restitution hearing in the district court. See State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 46-47 (Iowa 2001). Accordingly, we remand this case for a restitution hearing pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.3.