State of Iowa v. Dennis Eugene Cooper Jr. ( 2022 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 21-0378
Filed August 3, 2022
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DENNIS EUGENE COOPER JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mahaska County, Crystal S. Cronk,
Judge.
The defendant appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences.
AFFIRMED.
Jeffrey L. Powell of Powell & McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., Badding, J., and Carr, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2022).
2
TABOR, Presiding Judge.
Dennis Cooper, Jr., pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree sexual
abuse and one count of third-degree sexual abuse. The district court sentenced
him to a prison term not to exceed sixty years (twenty-five plus twenty-five plus
ten). Cooper contends the court did not give adequate reasons for imposing
consecutive sentences. Finding ample rationale in the sentencing colloquy, we
affirm.
We review Cooper’s sentencing claim for an abuse of discretion. See State
v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 592 (Iowa 1983). Abuse occurs only when the court
“exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” State v. Evans, 672 N.W.2d 328, 331 (Iowa 2003). Sentencing
decisions have a strong presumption in their favor. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d
708, 713 (Iowa 1995). A sentence should provide the “maximum opportunity for
the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community.” Iowa
Code § 901.5 (2021). To that end, the court must “state on the record its reason
for selecting the particular sentence.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). Further, the
court must explicitly state the reason for imposing consecutive terms, though it
may rely on the same reason as it did in arriving at the general sentence. State v.
Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).
Cooper’s appeal consolidates two cases against young family members.
His first plea admitted second-degree sexual abuse of a girl who was seven or
eight years old, and another offense when the same girl was around nine. His
second plea involved a different victim, who was suffering from a mental defect or
incapacity. As part of the plea agreement, the State dismissed six other counts.
3
And the parties were free to argue whether the terms of incarceration should be
concurrent or consecutive.
For sentencing, the parties stipulated to the inclusion of the first victim’s
deposition and Child Protection Center interview. The child detailed Cooper’s
regular and continuous sexual abuse over ten years. Beyond the crimes to which
Cooper pleaded, he stipulated he “committed other acts of sexual abuse against
[the younger victim] and those other acts may be considered by the court to
determine appropriate sentence.” The State also presented an impact statement
from the older victim. In mitigation, Cooper presented a psychological evaluation
describing him as “below average” for “risk to recidivate.” But the psychologist also
reported how Cooper “often minimized the seriousness of his actions and
perceived that their sexual relationships were consensual in nature.” He exhibited
“difficulty recognizing responsibility and awareness of his actions.”
The court prefaced its decision with the proper framework:
Mr. Cooper, I want to inform you that I have considered all of the
sentencing options provided for in the Iowa Code, and my judgment
relative to sentence is based on that which would provide maximum
opportunity for your rehabilitation and at the same time protect the
community from further offenses by you and others.
And after surveying evidence in the record, the court decided to boxcar all three
sentences:
In determining that a consecutive sentence is appropriate in this
case, I’ve considered the age of the victims, the length of the abuse
that occurred, your actions in grooming and maintaining a
relationship with those victims, the harm to the victims, the victim
impact statement presented here today, the maximum opportunity
for your rehabilitation, protection of the community from further
offenses by you and others, your age, prior record, employment and
family circumstances, the nature of the offenses committed, the
4
terms of the plea agreement, the financial condition of yourself, the
separate and serious nature of these offenses.
Cooper complains that the court’s explanation is inadequate and “could be
described as boilerplate.” Yet the sentencing court’s rationale need not be
elaborate. Even a “‘terse and succinct’ statement may be sufficient, ‘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. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa
2015) (citation omitted).
Here, the sentencing court’s explanation enables appellate review. Far
from “boilerplate,” the court articulated specific reasons supporting the maximum
sentence imposed. In particular, the court noted the young ages of the victims, the
longevity and persistence of the sexual abuse, the calculation and deliberation
involved in grooming the victims for the sex acts, and the profound impact the
crimes had on them—as one victim shared in her impact statement. The
egregiousness of Cooper’s actions is an appropriate basis for the court to
determine that consecutive sentences for all three counts was necessary to
maximize his chance of rehabilitation and to protect his victims and the community.
The court properly exercised its discretion. So we affirm the convictions and
sentences.
AFFIRMED.