Opinion
No. 2-535 / 02-0075
Filed September 11, 2002
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Thomas R. Hronek, District Associate Judge.
Defendant appeals the sentence and fine entered upon his conviction for assault with the intent to commit sexual abuse. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Angelina Thomas, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Hecht, JJ.
Jordan Michael Watkins appeals the sentence entered upon his conviction for assault with the intent to commit sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.11 (1999). We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings. On October 26, 2001, defendant Watkins was charged by trial information with sexual abuse in the third degree in violation of Iowa Code section 704.1. On December 4, 2001, the State filed an amended and substituted trial information charging defendant with assault with the intent to commit sexual abuse in violation of Iowa Code section 709.11. Watkins entered a written Alford guilty plea to the amended charge. On January 10, 2002, Watkins was sentenced to a term not to exceed two years and fined $500. He filed notice of appeal on the same day. He claims that the district court abused its discretion by (1) sentencing him to the maximum two-year term of incarceration and (2) fining him $500.
II. Scope and Standard of Review. Our scope of review is for correction of errors at law. State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). A sentence will not be upset on appellate review unless the defendant canshow abuse of trial court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995). An abuse of discretion may be found when the sentencing court "exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable." Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225.
III. The Two-Year Sentence. Watkins claims that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a two-year term of incarceration for his conviction for assault with intent to commit sexual abuse. The State had recommended a one-year jail sentence with all but ninety days suspended. The sentencing court, however, imposed the maximum sentence allowable for an aggravated misdemeanor. See Iowa Code § 903.1(2). The sentencing court described at great length its reasons for imposing the maximum sentence, including defendant's lack of sincere remorse, his age, his prior criminal history, and the safety of the community. While defendant believes that some of the mentioned factors favor a shorter sentence, he has not shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion. We, therefore, affirm on this issue.
IV. The $500 Fine. Defendant also claims that the sentencing court abused its discretion when it imposed the minimum fine of $500. Defendant argues that because the sentencing court did not acknowledge that it had the authority to suspend the minimum fine, the court was not utilizing its discretion. A sentencing court must state on the record its reasons for imposing a particular sentence, State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). We require that the court give at least "a cursory explanation . . . to allow appellate review of the trial court's discretionary action." Id. It is not necessary for a sentencing court to explain why it did not choose an alternate sentence or to acknowledge that it could have chosen an alternate sentence. In this case, the reasons given by the sentencing court are sufficient to explain why it chose to impose the fine, and so we affirm.
AFFIRMED.