State of Iowa v. Donald James Hill ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0030
Filed August 5, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DONALD JAMES HILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Cheryl E. Traum,
District Associate Judge.
Donald Hill appeals from the judgment and sentence following his plea of
guilty to the offense of failure to comply with sex-offender-registry requirements.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Steven A. Berger, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
DOYLE, J.
Donald Hill entered a plea of guilty to the offense of failure to comply with
sex-offender-registry requirements. Hill was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment to be served consecutive to the sentence for which he was on
parole. On appeal, Hill submits the sentencing court failed to provide reasons for
the imposition of consecutive sentences, and he requests this court vacate his
sentence and remand the matter for resentencing. We hold that the sentencing
court was not required to give reasons for imposing the consecutive sentences
pursuant to Iowa Code section 908.10A (2013). We therefore affirm.
Hill was charged by trial information with the offense of failing to comply
with the provisions of the sex offender registry, in violation of Iowa Code section
692A.111(1), an aggravated misdemeanor. Hill was on parole for another
unrelated offense at the time. He later entered a written plea of guilty. He was
sentenced to a term of imprisonment “not to exceed two years, to run
consecutive to the parole revocation in [the unrelated criminal case].” At the
sentencing hearing, the court stated: “The reason for the sentence is protection
of the community, seriousness of the crime, and the nature and circumstances of
the offense.” On appeal, Hill submits this statement is inadequate.
We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion, which will only be
found if the court acted “on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). “We give sentencing decisions by a trial
court a strong presumption in their favor.” Id.3
A sentencing court must state, on the record, its reason for selecting a
particular sentence. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010) (citing
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d)). The court must also provide reasons for imposing
consecutive sentences. See id. “A statement may be sufficient, even if terse
and succinct, so long as the brevity of the court’s statement does not prevent
review of the exercise of the trial court’s sentencing discretion.” State v.
Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 838 (Iowa 2010). We believe the statutory
sentencing provision for parole violations takes this case outside the rule
requiring the sentencing court to provide reasons for imposing consecutive
sentences.
When a person is convicted and sentenced to prison for an aggravated
misdemeanor committed while on parole, the person’s parole is revoked. See
Iowa Code § 908.10A. “The new sentence or imprisonment for conviction of an
aggravated misdemeanor shall be served consecutively with the term imposed
for the parole violation, unless a concurrent term of imprisonment is ordered by
the court.” Id. (emphasis added). Thus, under section 908.10A, the default or
presumptive sentence is a consecutive sentence. The statute itself is sufficient
reason for imposing consecutive sentences. We conclude this statutory
presumption obviated any requirement that the sentencing court elucidate
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences upon Hill. We therefore affirm Hill’s
judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
Danilson, C.J., concurs; Vaitheswaran, J., dissents.
4
VAITHESWARAN, J. (dissenting)
I respectfully dissent. Section 908.10A empowers a district court to
impose the sentences consecutively or concurrently. This choice between two
alternatives implicates the court’s discretion and, in my view, requires a court to
state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. The court did not state
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. Accordingly, I would vacate the
sentence and remand for resentencing. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d) (“The
court shall state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.”);
State v. Lumadue, 622 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Iowa 2001) (stating boilerplate
language did not satisfy rule’s requirement; “[m]issing was a rationale relating to
this offense, and this defendant’s background.”); State v. Jason, 779 N.W.2d 66,
77 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (stating court did not provide any reasons for its decision
to impose consecutive sentences).