Document Info

DocketNumber: 14-0351

Filed Date: 12/24/2014

Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/31/2014

  •                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 14-0351
    Filed December 24, 2014
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    WAYNE DAVID LONES JR.,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette L.
    Boehlje, Judge.
    Defendant appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
    driving while his license was revoked. AFFIRMED.
    David A. Kuehner of Eggert, Erb, Mulcahy & Kuehner, P.L.L.C., Charles
    City, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
    General, and Carlyle Dalen, County Attorney, for appellee.
    Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
    2
    MCDONALD, J.
    Wayne Lones pleaded guilty to driving while his license was revoked, in
    violation of Iowa Code section 321J.21 (2103). Sentencing for that offense was
    set concurrent with sentencing for another charge—operating while under the
    influence, third offense (“OWI”). For the offense of driving while revoked, the
    district court sentenced Lones to a term of incarceration not to exceed one year
    to run concurrent to his sentence for OWI.       On appeal, Lones contends the
    district court’s stated reasons for imposition of sentence related only to Lones’
    conviction for OWI and that the district court did not state reasons for imposition
    of the sentence for driving while revoked.
    We conclude the district court provided sufficient reasons for imposition of
    the challenged sentence as part of an overall sentencing plan. See State v.
    Hennings, 
    791 N.W.2d 828
    , 838 (Iowa 2010) (“‘[I]t is apparent to us that the
    district court ordered the defendant to serve his sentences . . . as part of an
    overall sentencing plan.’” (citation omitted)); State v. Bell, No. 13-0902, 
    2014 WL 2342461
    , at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 29, 2014) (relying on Hennings and affirming
    imposition of sentences where there was “no explicit connection between [the
    court’s] sentencing plan as a whole and its decision to impose the . . . sentence”);
    but see Bell, 
    2014 WL 2342461
    , at *3 (McDonald, J., dissenting) (reconciling
    Hennings); State v. Gasaway, No. 13-0458, 
    2014 WL 251906
    , at *3 (Iowa Ct.
    App. Jan. 23, 2014) (distinguishing Hennings); State v. Scott, No. 12-1531, 
    2013 WL 2146226
    , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. May 15, 2013) (Danilson, J., concurring
    specially) (concluding Hennings is inconsistent with the Iowa Rules of Criminal
    3
    Procedure and prior cases). In reaching this conclusion, we rely in part on the
    written judgment and sentence, which provides the challenged sentence was
    imposed for “the protection of society and rehabilitation of Defendant.” See State
    v. Thompson, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___, No. 13-1764, 
    2014 WL 7003808
    , at *3 (Iowa
    2014) (stating the district court can satisfy Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure
    2.23(3)(d) by “by orally stating the reasons on the record or placing the reasons
    in the written sentencing order”).    The sentence is affirmed without further
    opinion. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (e).
    AFFIRMED.