December 21, 2016
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
KEVIN EUGENE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
appeals his convictions for three counts of burglary in the
third degree; one count of theft in the first degree; and one
count of theft in the second degree. AFFIRMED IN PART,
REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.
State charged defendant Kevin Johnson with Count 1: burglary
in the third degree of a Family Dollar store on March 17,
2014; Count 2: burglary in the third degree of a
Jehovah's Witness Church on March 17, 2014; Count 3:
burglary in the third degree of the L & K Laundry on
January 24, 2014; Count 4: theft in the first degree for
property taken at the L & K Laundry; and Count 5: theft
in the second degree for property taken at the Family Dollar.
The State also alleged Johnson was subject to the habitual
offender enhancement on each count. On December 30, 2014,
Johnson stipulated he had been previously convicted of at
least two felonies and was subject to the habitual offender
waived a jury, and a trial to the court commenced on January
6, 2015. On May 24, 2015, the trial court filed its findings
of fact, conclusions of law and verdict-guilty on all counts
as charged with the habitual offender enhancement. Johnson
was sentenced on September 18, 2015, to imprisonment for a
period not to exceed fifteen years on each count. Count 1 was
ordered to be served consecutively to Count 3. Johnson filed
a timely notice of appeal on September 21, 2015. On appeal,
he claims (1) the convictions cannot stand as the testimony
of the accomplice was not corroborated, and (2) the trial
court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive
terms of imprisonment.
the defendant challenges the trial court's determination
that corroborating evidence existed to warrant submission of
the case to the trier of fact, our review is for correction
of errors of law. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
Legal standard for corroboration of accomplice
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(3) provides that a person may
not be convicted "upon the testimony of an accomplice or
a solicited person, unless corroborated by other evidence
which shall tend to connect the defendant with the commission
of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it
merely shows the commission of the offense or the
circumstances thereof." Corroborative evidence need not
be strong nor confirm every material fact. State v.
Berney, 378 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 1985). And it need not
confirm all the elements of the crime charged. State v.
Cuevas, 282 N.W.2d 74, 78 (Iowa 1979). Such evidence may
be direct or circumstantial. State v. Bugely, 562
N.W.2d 173, 176 (Iowa 1997). Any corroborative evidence
tending to connect the defendant to the commission of the
crime supports the credibility of the accomplice and is
sufficient. State v. Vesey, 241 N.W.2d 888,
890 (Iowa 1976). The only requirement is that the
accomplice's testimony be supported in some material fact
tending to connect the defendant to the crime charged.
State v. Aldape, 307 N.W.2d 32, 41 (Iowa 1981). It
must be inculpatory but need not be entirely inconsistent
with innocence. State v. Larson, 512 N.W.2d 803, 806
(Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
corroboration requirement serves two purposes: "First,
it independently tends to connect defendant to the crime.
Second, it supports the credibility of an accomplice whose
motives are clearly suspect because of the accomplice's
self-interest in focusing blame on the defendant."
State v. Brown, 397 N.W.2d 689, 694 (Iowa 1986). The
existence of corroborative evidence is a question of law for
the court, but its sufficiency is a question of fact for the
fact finder. Bugely, 562 N.W.2d at 176. Each case
must be governed by its own circumstances, and evidence that
merely raises a suspicion the accused is the guilty party is
not sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an
accomplice to warrant a conviction. State v.
Gillespie, 503 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993).
evaluating sufficiency challenges, we do not resolve
conflicts in the evidence, assess the credibility of
witnesses, or weigh evidence. State v. Nitcher, 720
N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006). Rather, we view all the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, even if
contradicted, and indulge in every legitimate inference that
may be fairly and reasonably deduced from this evidence.
State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Iowa 1980).
The fact-finder decides which evidence to accept or reject.
State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28 (Iowa 2005).
trial Johnson did not dispute that the crimes had occurred
but denied his involvement. Evidence produced by the State at
trial that Johnson was involved in the burglaries and thefts
was substantially based on the testimony of an accomplice,
Jimmy. Johnson claims that Jimmy's testimony was not
corroborated as required by rule 2.21(3) and, therefore, the
evidence was insufficient to convict him, his convictions
must be reversed, and the case must be remanded for
written findings, the trial court set out the evidence
establishing the burglaries and thefts occurred, as well as
the evidence the court found corroborated the
accomplice's testimony that Johnson participated in these
crimes. Jimmy testified that he and Johnson committed all
three burglaries, and Johnson does not challenge the trial
court's findings of fact as not being supported by
Johnson does not challenge the crimes occurred, we find it
only necessary to look at the district court's findings
as to evidence of corroboration connecting him to these
crimes and determine if it meets the legal requirement to
establish defendant's guilt.
Burglaries and investigation.
L & K Laundry.
the night of January 24, 2014, L & K Laundry in Sioux
City was burglarized. When the laundry opened for business in
the morning, the owner discovered the break-in and reported
it to the Sioux City police. In investigating, police
observed damage to the back door and a bar/brace inside the
door indicating the door had been pried open. Additionally,
officers found that the phone line on the outside of the
building and wires connected to two alarms inside the
building were cut. A safe inside the laundry office area had
been moved, pried open, and the contents stolen. An
identification technician processed the laundromat. No
fingerprints were discovered; however, a partial shoe print
consistent with Nike Shox shoes was obtained from on top of
the safe. As of March 17, 2014, no arrests had been made in
regard to this burglary.
Jehovah's Witness Church.
early morning hours of March 17, 2014, sometime before the
burglary of the Family Dollar store, there was a break-in at
the Jehovah's Witness Church in Sioux City, Iowa. At
approximately 4:30 a.m., Tom Callender, a volunteer minister
at the church, received a phone call at his home from Midwest
Alarm System informing him the signal from the church had
been lost and Midwest Alarm had been unable to restore that
signal. Because the alarm company was unable to determine any
specific cause for the lost signal, Callender did not
immediately contact the police.
approximately 9:00 a.m., another church member discovered the
church break-in, and the police were called. Investigation
disclosed that locked cabinets and desk drawers were broken
open and appeared to be ransacked. An alarm was broken off of
a wall. On the outside of the building, the hinge pins in a
side door had been removed and there were pry marks to the
door. Security lights near that side door and on a garage
were broken. Phone lines that were also used for the Midwest
Alarm system had been cut. A binder and paperwork were
missing from one of the offices, the garage door opener was
missing from a storage room inside the church, and a lawn
mower blade was missing from inside the garage.
The Family Dollar Store.
a.m. on March 17, 2014, Sioux City police were notified the
door to the Family Dollar store was open and noise was coming
from inside. Due to the significance of the evidence
surrounding this crime, the district court's findings are
set out here in detail:
Officer Noltze arrived first and parked on the east side of
the Family Dollar Store where he observed the open door. . .
Officers Fleckenstein and Hansen arrived just after Officer
Noltze. As Officers Fleckenstein and Hansen pulled in on the
west side of the building, they both observed two individuals
wearing dark clothing and appearing to be carrying something
running out of the front door of the store on the south side
of the building, then running west and then north around the
building, and then going down into a ravine that ran
approximately east-west to the rear or north of the store. .
. . Officer Noltze crossed a bridge and parked on the north
side of the ravine.
From his position on the north side of the ravine, Officer
Fleckenstein could hear noises down in the ravine under the
bridge; however, he could not see any persons because it was
still dark at that time of the day. He then called his K-9
Eik and gave a standard verbal K-9 warning to the persons
under the bridge. Immediately after giving this warning, one
of the persons began running in a northwesterly direction
within the ravine; however, Officer Fleckenstein and K-9 Eik
were unable to get down into the ravine and catch up to this
person due to the darkness, the difficult terrain, and the
brush or thickets growing in the bank of the ravine.
Officer Fleckenstein and K-9 Eik then returned to the bridge,
and he gave another K-9 warning to the other person who was
still hiding in the ravine. Officer Fleckenstein then found
an area for Eik to go down into the ravine, and K-9 Eik
shortly thereafter apprehended that person. The person
apprehended under the bridge was Jimmy . . . .
After Jimmy . . . was apprehended and taken into custody,
Officer Fleckenstein located under the bridge cash in an ATM
box in the amount of $4, 380, two plastic money bags of cash
in the approximate amount of $1, 000, and a duffel bag
containing a hammer, pry bar, and a lawn mower blade which
was later determined to be consistent with the lawn mower
blade missing from the garage at the Jehovah's Witnesses
Church. Officers Noll and Harstad also responded to the call
and assisted in the investigation of the Family Dollar Store.
Within the brush leading down into the ravine from the store,
officers found a black mask and white cotton glove that had
been worn by Jimmy . . . . They also located wire cutters
outside the Family Dollar Store which were believed to have
fallen out of a hole in the duffel bag.
. . . While Officers Harstad and Reed were investigating the
store, the store manager, Cheryl Kollbaum, was called, and
she walked around the inside and outside of the building with
the officers. . . . They noted damage to the electrical
system and cut phone lines in a back room area of the store
and damage to a heat sensor on the ceiling . . . (Jimmy . . .
testified that he thought the heat sensor was a camera).
Directly beneath the heat sensor, they observed a footstool
with a shoe print. . . . [Kollbaum] also identified the cash
bags and ATM box that were located underneath the bridge.
After Officer Noltze cleared the inside of the store and
Officers Harstad and Reed arrived at the store, Officer
Noltze then used his K-9 in an effort to "track"
the other person who had run away from under the bridge.
Officer Noltze and his K-9 tracked that person in the ravine
and through underground culverts. Officer Noltze and his K-9
lost the scent of the person on the street level above the
culvert in the area of South Rustin Street.
. . . .
During this time, Officer Finken was dispatched to the
Regency Trailer Park located northeast from the Family Dollar
Store in response to a report of a suspicious van parked in
front of an abandoned trailer. The van was registered in the
name of Theresa Aguirre who had also just reported the van as
being stolen. It was later discovered that Ms. Aguirre and
Jimmy . . . were romantically involved and were the parents
of the same children. Officer Finken searched the inside of
the van and located insurance cards in the name of Jimmy . .
. . Officer Finken also found a bag with paperwork and a
garage door opener which were later identified as the
paperwork and garage door opener that were missing from the
Jehovah's Witnesses Church.
As noted above, Carmen Gonzalez-Castro also testified at
trial. Ms. Gonzalez testified that in the early morning hours
of March 17, Defendant called her asking for a ride because
his vehicle had broken down. Ms. Gonzalez further testified
that she eventually agreed and picked up Defendant at a
location just north of the area where the culvert passes
under South Rustin Street. Ms. Gonzalez testified that
Defendant was alone and got into the backseat of her van. She
further testified that Defendant was wearing dark clothing,
was muddy, and sounded and appeared to be out of breath.
According to Ms. Gonzalez, Defendant asked her to drop him
off at an apartment building located behind his residence,
which she did. According to Ms. Gonzalez, she noticed as
Defendant got out of her vehicle that his back left pant leg
was torn, and his leg appeared to be bleeding.
Ms. Gonzalez further testified that the next morning, March
18, her children noticed clothing items in the rear storage
area of the van, specifically a pair of muddy Nike Shox
tennis shoes, a pair of white cotton gloves, and a black or
gray mask. Ms. Gonzalez and Theresa Aguirre then put these
items in a plastic bag and took them to Defendant's
residence and left them with Defendant's spouse, Sherri
Johnson. They then contacted the Sioux City Police. Officer
Martinez subsequently retrieved and seized the bag of items
which had been placed by Sherri Johnson in the backyard of
Prior to these events on March 18, Sherri Johnson had already
become aware of the burglaries and she suspected involvement
of Defendant. In particular, during his interview by
Detective Sanders on the 17th, Jimmy . . . stated that
Defendant was the second person involved and not Jimmy
Merchant as he previously stated. Detective Sanders requested
and obtained a warrant to search Defendant's residence,
and such search was executed while Sherri Johnson was present
on March 17. No items were located at that time. Based on the
information that had been obtained, Detective Sanders also
attempted to contact the Defendant and eventually spoke to
him by phone. Defendant told Detective Sanders words to the
effect that they would not catch him.
[Identification] Tech Roach processed evidence obtained at .
. . the Family Dollar. No fingerprints were discovered;
however, a partial shoe print was taken . . . from the
footstool at the Family Dollar. [The] shoe print [was]
consistent or otherwise similar in size and pattern to
Defendant's Nike Shox shoes.
district court recognized the accomplice's testimony had
to be corroborated to find defendant guilty. Upon our review,
we conclude the trial court did not commit legal error in
finding corroborating evidence and, as a result, finding
Johnson guilty of the Family Dollar burglary. The trial court
found the accomplice Jimmy was a credible witness. Jimmy was
caught shortly after being seen running out of Family Dollar
with another man. Items from the church burglary were found
in a vehicle registered to Theresa Aguirre, Jimmy's
significant other, parked not far from the Family Dollar
significant, when the police arrived at the Family Dollar,
officers observed two men running out of the store wearing
dark clothing, and the officers noted the respective sizes of
the individuals as they ran into a ravine. The descriptions
fit both Jimmy and Johnson. Using a K-9 police dog, Jimmy was
captured, and the other person was tracked through the ravine
until the K-9 lost the scent near South Rustin Street. Within
the brush leading down into the ravine from the store,
officers found a black mask and white cotton glove that had
been worn by Jimmy.
around 7:00 a.m. on March 17, Johnson called Carmen
Gonzalez-Castro asking for a ride because his vehicle had
broken down. She agreed and picked Johnson up at a location
just north of the area where the culvert passes under South
Rustin Street. He was alone, and he got into the backseat of
her van. He was wearing dark clothing, was muddy, and sounded
and appeared to be out of breath. Johnson asked her to drop
him off at an apartment building located behind his
residence, which she did. As he got out of her vehicle, she
noticed that his back left pant leg was torn and his leg
appeared to be bleeding.
next morning Gonzalez-Castro found clothing items in the rear
storage area of her van, specifically a pair of muddy Nike
Shox shoes, a pair of white cotton gloves, and a black or
gray mask. She and Aguirre then put these items in a plastic
bag and took them to Johnson's residence and left them
with Johnson's spouse. Officer Martinez later retrieved
and seized the bag of items, which Sherri Johnson had placed
in the backyard of their residence.
white gloves found in the ravine worn by Jimmy were
consistent with those found in the van and the type used at
Johnson's employment. The Nike Shox shoes were consistent
in size and sole configuration with the shoe print taken from
the stool inside the Family Dollar. The trial court
acknowledged the "partial print does not have the same
unique characteristics such as a fingerprint connecting
Defendant and only Defendant to the crime; however, it is
circumstantial evidence pointing to his involvement and
supporting the testimony of Jimmy . . . ."
argues the failure to establish definitively that the shoe
print was made by his Nike Shox shoes defeats corroboration.
We do not agree. This might be true if the State was relying
on this evidence alone to prove Johnson guilty of the
burglary. See State v. Mark, 286 N.W.2d 396, 409
(Iowa 1979) ("In order to establish a proper
foundational connection between defendant and the crime scene
shoe prints, it was necessary that the State establish that
similarities existed between the distinctive characteristics
exhibited by defendant and the characteristics exhibited by
the maker of the crime scene shoe prints."). Here, the
State is only relying on this as evidence of corroboration to
satisfy the rule, and it only needs to tend to
connect Johnson to the crime. See Bugely, 562 N.W.2d
at 176-77 ("The existence of a second, small set of
footprints at these burglaries confirms that a second person
was involved. These prints, which match those present at [the
first] residence, show the same person who committed the
[first] burglary was present at the [second]
burglar[y]."). In Bugely, the defendant's
shoes were not found and were not available for comparison to
the shoe prints. The shoe evidence was still deemed
sufficient corroboration of the accomplice's testimony to
justify submission to the jury. The defendant's shoes
found by Gonzalez-Castro, together with the other items and
circumstances of her giving defendant a ride at a location
near where the police K-9 lost the scent within the time
frame of his fleeing the Family Dollar, sufficiently
connected defendant to the Family Dollar burglary as to
corroborate Jimmy's testimony.
addition to the foregoing, the State presented evidence that
Johnson did not return to his employment on or after March
17. Further, Detective Sanders called Johnson on March 17
using Jimmy's cellphone. Sanders testified, "I told
him that I needed to speak with him at the police department.
Basically, he said that he wasn't going to come in. Then
I told him that I would issue warrants for his arrest, and
his comments were basically, 'Good luck trying to find
me.'" Johnson again argues this evidence does not
establish his guilt. This evidence alone would not be
sufficient corroboration. But our supreme court has
recognized there may be a combination of circumstances,
singularly unpersuasive but in totality sufficient, to
entitle the trier of fact to conclude that the
accomplice's testimony has been corroborated in
accordance with the statutory requirement. See State v.
Willman, 244 N.W.2d 314, 315 (Iowa 1976). And there is a
difference in the quantum of proof of identity necessary for
evidence being used as substantive proof of guilt as opposed
to evidence being used to corroborate an accomplice.
State v. Gates, 67 N.W.2d 579, 583 (Iowa 1954).
Rather, "inculpatory facts in testimony of an accomplice
or accomplices were corroborated by evidence showing the
defendant's association with the accomplice or
accomplices, proximity to the crime scene and additional
suspicious circumstances suggestive of the defendant's
participation in the offense." Vesey, 241
N.W.2d at 891. The evidence of corroboration as found by the
trial court was sufficient as to the Family Dollar store
burglary to support the finding of guilt. The district court
is therefore to be affirmed as to Counts 1 and 5.
Jehovah's Witness Church.
trial court initially noted that Jimmy was involved in both
the burglary at Family Dollar and the burglary at the
Jehovah's Witness Church. The trial court also found the
extent of damage and other observations made at the church
suggested that at least one other person was involved in the
church break-in with Jimmy. Based on these circumstances, the
trial court found the same corroborating evidence proving
Johnson's involvement in the Family Dollar burglary
indirectly corroborated the testimony of Jimmy that Johnson
was the other person involved in the burglary of the church.
cannot agree when these findings are evaluated in light of
the Vesey case. Corroboration of testimony that is
not inculpatory is not corroboration of a material fact
tending to connect the accused with the crime. Id.
The extent of damage may indicate that more than one person
burglarized the church, but it does not place Johnson there.
trial court also found that the facts and circumstances of
the Family Dollar burglary were strikingly similar to the
facts and circumstances of the church burglary to be
considered evidence identifying Johnson as one of the
perpetrators of the church burglary. We cannot agree. The
trial court acknowledged that similarity between two crimes
must be so strikingly similar or of a unique nature that
involvement in the prior crime makes it more likely that
defendant was involved in the present crime. See State v.
Butler, 415 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1987) ("When
prior crimes evidence is offered to prove identity, 'the
test of relevancy is whether the prior crime and the crime
for which defendant is being charged reveal circumstances
that are 'strikingly similar' or of a 'unique
nature, ' such that involvement in the prior crime makes
it more likely that defendant was involved in the present
crime.'"). The circumstances of the two burglaries
are not so similar or unique so as to establish Johnson's
participation in the Family Dollar proves he also
participated in the church burglary.
trial court also found that Jimmy used Aguirre's van to
drive from the church to the area of the Family Dollar and,
therefore, it was reasonable to conclude that Johnson was
with Jimmy at the church since no means of transportation
explained how Johnson got to the Family Dollar. The trial
To conclude otherwise would mean that Jimmy . . . either
accomplished the church burglary by himself and then picked
up Defendant in the middle of the night on his way to the
Family Dollar; or, that Jimmy . . . and a third person
committed the burglary at the church, then that third person
left or was dropped off somewhere by Jimmy . . . before [he]
then picked up Defendant to go to the Family Dollar. These
scenarios are certainly possible; however, they are not
likely or reasonable.
corroborating evidence was found to indicate Johnson was in
the van or at the church. The trial court found the scenarios
were only possible. Evidence which merely raises a suspicion
the accused is the guilty party is not sufficiently
corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to warrant a
conviction. Gillespie, 503 N.W.2d at 617.
sole connection between Johnson and the burglary of the
church is the temporal connection-the church burglary
occurring within hours of the Family Dollar burglary. Using
that link, the court stated, "Based on these
circumstances, the same corroborating evidence proving
Defendant's involvement in the Family Dollar burglary
indirectly corroborates the testimony of Jimmy . . . that
Defendant was the other person involved in the burglary of
the church." The accomplice's testimony must be
supported in some material fact tending to connect the
defendant to the crime charged. See Aldape, 307
N.W.2d at 41. The temporal connection does not eliminate the
need to connect Johnson to the particular charge.
Bugely, 562 N.W.2d at 176-77.
the State did not present evidence to corroborate Jimmy's
testimony that Johnson was involved in the church burglary,
the trial court erred as a matter of law in holding there was
corroboration. Johnson's conviction as to Count 2 must be
reversed and the case remanded with direction to dismiss this
L & K Laundry.
regard to Johnson's involvement in the L & K Laundry
burglary, the trial court initially concluded the facts and
circumstances of the burglaries at the Jehovah's Witness
Church and Family Dollar were strikingly similar to this
burglary, which occurred within the same general time frame
as the other two burglaries. Additionally, the court relied
on the fact that Jimmy was involved in all three burglaries
and its previous conclusion Johnson had committed the church
and Family Dollar burglaries with Jimmy.
discussed above, the facts and circumstances of the
burglaries are not so strikingly similar or unique that such
a connection can be made. The laundry burglary was two months
prior to the church and Family Dollar burglaries. As we have
already held above, the State did not present adequate
corroborative evidence to connect the defendant to the
Jehovah's Witness Church burglary.
trial court found, even ignoring the evidence of the other
burglaries, that the damage to the laundry, including the
moving and forced entry into the safe, proved that Jimmy did
not act alone. Again, evidence that someone must have helped
with the burglary is still not corroborative evidence
connecting Johnson to the crime. The trial court also noted
that Johnson was familiar with the laundry, its layout, and
the owner's practice of having cash available to cash
customers' payroll checks. Additionally, Johnson was at
the laundry the day before the burglary. None of these
findings place him at the laundry at the time of the
burglary. Moreover, no evidence of this burglary (cash,
jewelry, or cigarettes) was discovered during the search of
the trial court found the partial shoe print identified on
the top of the safe was consistent with the shoe print found
at Family Dollar and Johnson's Nike Shox shoes. But the
trial court recognized the "partial print does not have
the same unique characteristics such as a fingerprint
connecting Defendant and only Defendant to the crime."
The trial court went on to state that this was
"circumstantial evidence pointing to [Johnson's]
involvement and supporting the testimony of Jimmy." The
trial court thus concluded "that Jimmy's testimony,
along with this other evidence corroborating such testimony
and linking Defendant to the crime, proves [Johnson's]
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."
agree with the district court that the Nike Shox shoe print,
by itself, does not connect Johnson to the crime. But when
considered with the other evidence of the similar shoe print
found at the Family Dollar store and the corroborative
evidence connecting Johnson to the Family Dollar burglary,
this is sufficient corroborative evidence to tie him to the L
& K Laundry burglary. There was no legal error as to
Counts 3 and 4, and those verdicts and judgments are
review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion or
defect in the sentencing procedure." State v.
Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). "An abuse
of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds
clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable."
sentencing court is required to "state on the record its
reason for selecting the particular sentence." Iowa R.
Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d); State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Sentencing courts are encouraged to
"give more detailed reasons for a sentence specific to
the individual defendant and crimes." State v.
Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016). Further, courts
"should also explicitly state the reasons for imposing a
consecutive sentence, although in doing so the court may rely
on the same reasons for imposing a sentence of
incarceration." Id. at 275. Here, the trial
court imposed consecutive sentences for Count 1, the burglary
of the Family Dollar store, and Count 3, the burglary of the
L & K Laundry. Johnson contends the trial judge failed to
articulate on the record the reasons for imposing these
our review of the record, we find the trial court met the
requirements of rule 2.23(3)(d) and adequately stated not
only the reasons for imposing prison sentences, but also
consecutive sentences. We find no error or reason to remand
the case for resentencing. Except for Count 2, the trial
court's sentences should be affirmed.
convictions and sentences in Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 are
affirmed. The conviction is reversed as to Count 2, and the
case is remanded to the district court for dismissal of Count
2 for the reasons set forth in this opinion.
IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
[*]Senior judge assigned by order
pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).