unmentioned" and the district "court expressly agreed with counsel's statement that 'we don't have too much wiggle room' "); Ayers, 590 N.W.2d at 33 (holding that the district court incorrectly believed it had no discretion as to the imposition of a fine and remanding for resentencing); State v. Boley, No. 23-0854, 2024 WL 707460, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 21, 2024) ("The trial court has the discretion to impose a higher fine than the minimum, but its explanation does not reflect an exercise of discretion. Instead, it shows a misstatement [about the relevant] minimum fines ...."); Kramer, 773 N.W.2d at 901 (concluding that the district court abused its discretion in determining that it had no discretion to suspend the fine portion of a sentence, vacating that portion of the sentence, and "remand[ing] for resentencing to allow the district court to exercise its discretion"); State v. Wong, No. 01-1708, 2003 WL 183332, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2003) ("[T]he record shows the prosecutor, the defense counsel, and the court were unaware of the proper [fine range] to be applied.").