State of Iowa v. Shevin Darnell Caston

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1261
Filed December 23, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SHEVIN DARNELL CASTON,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Bradley J.
Harris, Judge.
Shevin Darnell Caston appeals from the concurrent sentences imposed.
AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli Huser, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Presiding Judge.
Shevin Darnell Caston appeals from the concurrent sentences imposed
following his pleas of guilty to the offenses of felon in possession of a firearm and
carrying weapons, contending the district court failed to provide adequate
reasons for the sentences imposed.
A sentence that conforms to the statute “is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or
the consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720,
724 (Iowa 2002). If we are not able to review the district court’s reasoning, we
are unable to determine if there has been an abuse of discretion. State v.
Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 407 (Iowa 2015). Thus, Iowa Rule of Criminal
Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the district court to state its reasons for selecting a
particular sentence. “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. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d
337, 343 (Iowa 1989). Boilerplate reasons alone are not sufficient. See State v.
Lumadue, 622 N.W.2d 302, 304 (Iowa 2001).
Here, the district court noted Caston had previous involvement in
“dangerous activities,” had served a prior sentence of incarceration that “should
be enough to send a message to you,” and upon release had again chosen to
carry a firearm knowing he was not permitted to do so. The court stated that “for
the protection of society, it’s just necessary that you serve some term of
incarceration.” The court observed, “[T]here’s simply consequences for what you
did, and in this case it’s going to prison.” The sentencing order states that this
3
particular sentence was “most likely to protect society and rehabilitate the
defendant based upon the nature of the offense, defendant’s prior record, and
the recommendation of the parties and the [presentence investigation report].”
We are not prevented from reviewing the district court’s reasoning and we find no
abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. We therefore affirm.
AFFIRMED.