Opinion
No. 6-240 / 05-1071
Filed April 12, 2006
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Odell G. McGhee, District Associate Judge.
Larry Michael Vignaroli appeals from his conviction and sentence for operating while intoxicated, third offense. CONVICTION AFFIRMED, SENTENCE VACATED, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Romonda Belcher-Ford, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.
Larry Michael Vignaroli appeals from his conviction and sentence, following a stipulated bench trial, for operating while intoxicated (OWI), third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2003). He contends the district court erred by failing to provide any reasons for its sentence and by denying defense counsel the opportunity to make a statement prior to sentencing. We affirm Vignaroli's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for resentencing.
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)( d) requires the sentencing court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence. The explanation does not need to be detailed, but the court must at least provide a cursory explanation. State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989). The purpose for this rule is to allow us to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Mickens, 462 N.W.2d 296, 299 (Iowa Ct.App. 1990). Failure to adequately state the reasons for the sentence imposed requires that the sentence be vacated and the case remanded for amplification of the record and resentencing. State v. Mai, 572 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997).
Upon our review of the record, we find the court failed to give any reasons for the sentence it imposed. The State concedes this point. Accordingly, we conclude Vignaroli's sentence must be vacated and his case remanded for resentencing. Because resentencing is necessary, we need not address Vignaroli's contention that the sentencing court erred by denying defense counsel the opportunity to speak in mitigation of punishment at sentencing.