State of Iowa v. Ashton Howard Dix

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0862
Filed April 22, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ASHTON HOWARD DIX,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Stuart P.
Werling, Judge.
Ashton Dix appeals the district court’s decision to impose consecutive
sentences. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik and Martha E. Trout,
Assistant Attorneys General, and Alan Ostergren, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
Ashton Dix appeals the district court’s sentence following his guilty pleas
to second-degree robbery and second-degree theft. Dix claims the district court
abused its discretion by imposing consecutive prison sentences. We affirm on
appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c),
and (d).
Dix was charged with first-degree robbery, first-degree theft, and second-
degree theft. Dix entered into a plea agreement in which he would plead guilty to
the lesser included offense of second-degree robbery and second-degree theft.
The State agreed to drop the first-degree theft charge. The parties did not reach
an agreement on the question of whether the sentences would run concurrently
or consecutively. On April 1, 2014, Dix entered, and the court accepted, his
guilty plea.
A sentencing hearing was held on May 4. The State recommended
consecutive sentences, and Dix asked for concurrent sentences. The court
sentenced Dix to consecutive sentences, imposed minimum fines, and ordered
Dix to pay restitution. Dix now appeals from the district court’s sentence.
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724
(Iowa 2002). We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an
abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d at 724.
3
Dix claims the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider
mitigating circumstances. “The decision of the district court to impose a
particular sentence within the statutory limits 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.” Id. An abuse of discretion will not be
found unless we are able to discern that the decision was exercised on grounds
or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Loyd, 530
N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3) requires
a trial court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence.
“Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must
be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court’s discretionary action. A
trial court must also give reasons for its decision to impose consecutive
sentences.” State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000) (citations
omitted); State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 343 (Iowa 1989) (“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.”).
At the sentencing hearing, the district court evaluated the presentence
investigative report, and listened to recommendations from the State, from
defense counsel, and from Dix. After considering all the relevant sentencing
factors, the district court stated: “It is the order of the Court based on your rather
lengthy criminal history, your correctional needs, and the seriousness of this
offense that these sentence run consecutively.”
4
We find the district court listed adequate reasons for sentencing Dix to
consecutive prison sentences. We find the district court did not abuse its
discretion and affirm Dix’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.