State of Iowa v. Terry Wayne McDole

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 22-1397
Filed April 26, 2023
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TERRY WAYNE MCDOLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Hans Becker, District
Associate Judge.
Terry McDole appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to
domestic abuse assault, second offense. AFFIRMED.
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ
2
VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.
Terry McDole pled guilty to domestic abuse assault, second offense. The
district court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to a prison term not
exceeding two years. The court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to
sentences imposed in another case. The court’s written order stated
“[c]onsecutive sentences are imposed because the crimes for which the
consecutive sentences are imposed[] involve separate and distinct crimes
deserving of separate punishment in the form of consecutive sentences.” The
order further stated the “overall sentence” provided for McDole’s “rehabilitation and
the protection of the community.” The court cited its consideration of “the
sentencing recommendations of the parties as well as [McDole’s] age and the
facts, [his] criminal history, the need to deter [him] and others similarly situated
from committing offenses of this nature, and the circumstances surrounding the
particular offense.”
McDole appeals his sentence. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 109
(Iowa 2020) (holding good cause exists to challenge a sentence following a guilty
plea). He argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive
sentences. In his view, the court “did not mention” his “substance-abuse problem,”
which he characterizes as a “mitigating circumstance” that warranted treatment.
While courts are obligated to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing
sentence, “they are not ‘required to specifically acknowledge each such claim of
mitigation urged by a defendant.’” State v. Skipper, No. 22-0944, 2023 WL
2674089, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023) (quoting State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d
9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)); see also State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 679 (Iowa
3
1998). The district court’s written reasons for imposition of consecutive sentences
are virtually identical to reasons we have upheld. See State v. Ganaway,
No. 17-0975, 2018 WL 2246847, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 16, 2018) (finding no
abuse of discretion where the sentencing order stated the sentences were
consecutive based on “the separate and serious nature of the offenses”). At the
sentencing hearing, the court also pointed out that the offense, which was the
same as one of the offenses McDole was found to have committed in the other
case, “occurred . . . eight days after his prior convictions.”
We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing
consecutive sentences.
AFFIRMED.