Opinion
No. 1-1041 / 01-0262.
Filed April 10, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Guthrie County, PETER A. KELLER, Judge.
Goehring appeals his judgment and sentence for multiple counts of sexual abuse and indecent contact, contending the district court abused its sentencing discretion. AFFIRMED.
Eric Parrish of Parrish, Kruidenier, Moss, Dunn, Montgomery Boles, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee-State.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Zimmer and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Michael Goehring pled guilty to four counts of third-degree sexual abuse, one count of second-degree sexual abuse, one count of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, and one count of indecent contact with a child. Iowa Code §§ 709.1(3); 709.4(2)(b),(c)(4); 709.1; 709.3(2), 708.1 and 709.11, 12(1) (1999). The charges stemmed from allegations that he sexually molested six girls. The district court ordered Goehring to serve consecutive prison terms not exceeding ten years on the first four counts, twenty-five years on the fifth count, and two years each on the sixth and seventh counts. On appeal, Goehring challenges the court's decision to run the sentences consecutively rather than concurrently. Our review of this issue is for abuse of discretion. State v. Taylor, 596 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Iowa 1999).
We find no abuse of discretion here. Our highest court has stated a court's statements need only be detailed enough to permit review of the court's discretionary action. See State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). The district court's explanation more than satisfies this requirement. The court explicitly outlined why it opted for consecutive sentences, stating:
Further ordered that the, I guess the only issue left here is whether the sentences should be consecutive or concurrent.
These were outrageous crimes. Comments of the pre-sentence investigator says it all. Well, says a lot at least, and I'm going to quote that.
"This has been a very traumatic and emotional experience of the victims of these offenses and the healing process will take a long time. Some may never fully recover. It is this agent's opinion that defendant exhibited only superficial remorse for his actions during the interview and that defendant's version of the offenses would be indicative of an individual who is in significant denial and takes very little responsibility for his actions and behaviors. Defendant even seems to blame the victims at times."
The agent indicated his opinion that defendant needs to be held accountable for each and every offense, since there are so many victims. Due to those factors, the agent made the recommendations as set forth in the pre-sentence report which included running the sentences consecutively. I agree with that assessment. These sentences for this outrageous conduct on behalf of the defendant shall run consecutively.
The court additionally stated it considered "the nature of the offenses and all of the facts and circumstances, the protection of the community from further offenses, defendant's age, employment circumstances, family circumstances, and the nature of all of the offenses to which he has pled guilty." See State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999) (in applying its discretion, court should consider all pertinent matters in determining proper sentence including the nature of the offense, attending circumstances, defendant's age, character and propensities and chances of reform). These statements furnish ample support for the court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. See State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 679 (Iowa 1998) (consecutive sentences for lascivious acts convictions justified based on nature of offenses and number of victims). Accordingly, we affirm Goehring's judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.