Opinion
No. 3-298 / 02-1298.
Filed May 29, 2003.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Decatur County, WILLIAM JOY, Judge.
Defendant Carl Shelton appeals the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for two counts of assault, following his guilty plea to two counts of assault under Iowa Code sections 708.1(1) and 708.2(1) (2001) and one count of willful injury under section 708.4(2). AFFIRMED.
David Morse of Rosenberg, Stowers Morse, Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Richard Bennett, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas Hammerand, County Attorney, and Carol Clark, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and VOGEL, JJ.
Defendant Carl Shelton appeals the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences for two counts of assault, following his guilty plea to two counts of assault under Iowa Code sections 708.1(1) and 708.2(1) (2001) and one count of willful injury under section 708.4(2). Defendant argues on appeal the district court erred by failing to give reasoning for its imposition of consecutive sentences on the assault counts. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Defendant was charged with two counts of assault and one count of willful injury after hitting Jordan Long with his car on March 9, 2002, exiting his car and striking Long, and, following a failed attempt to drive off, exiting his car a second time and hitting and kicking Long again. Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of misdemeanor assault and one count of willful injury, a class D felony. He received a five-year suspended sentence on the willful injury conviction and two 180-day sentences with all but thirty days suspended on each sentence on the assault charges. The sentences on the assault charges were to be served consecutively. In ordering that the sentences on the assault charges be served consecutively, the court stated,
Mr. Shelton, the Court does not agree with you or with your attorney that this was the same transaction, that this was one incident. You could have thought and contemplated this matter before you drove your car into Mr. Long. You could have thought about it and stopped then. But you committed another offense. And, unbelievably, you went back and assaulted him again.
Therefore, Mr. Shelton, the Court is going to order that these sentences run consecutively, that being one after the other.
II. SCOPE OF REVIEW
We review sentencing decisions by the district court for abuse of discretion. State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). We will find an abuse of discretion only if the district court's discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id.
III. ANALYSIS
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)( d) requires a trial court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence. See Oliver, 588 N.W.2d at 414. Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court's discretionary action. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). A trial court must also give reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences. Id.
As the district court stated in its reasoning, the defendant in this case continued to assault the victim, committing multiple offenses one after another rather than exhibiting the peaceful demeanor he sought to convince the court was his true nature. The court reasoned that the assaults appeared to have some thought behind them, aggravating the punishment the court believed was necessary. Consequently, the court ordered consecutive sentences on each of the assault sentences. We find no abuse of discretion.