from the Iowa District Court for Des Moines County, John G.
defendant appeals the district court's imposition of a
consecutive sentence. AFFIRMED.
L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Thomas J. Ogden, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
McCann appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to four
counts of delivery of a controlled substance, in violation of
Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2015), and one count of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver,
also in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d). McCann
claims the district court failed to adequately explain its
reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.
Background Facts and Proceedings
16, 2016, the State charged McCann with four counts of
delivery of a controlled substance and one count of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver.
On June 20, McCann pled guilty to all five counts, and a
sentencing hearing was set for August 8. At sentencing, the
State recommended a term of incarceration of five years on
each count and requested the terms be served consecutively.
McCann requested any terms of incarceration to be served
concurrently. Ultimately, the district court sentenced McCann
to terms of imprisonment of five years on each of the four
counts of delivery of a controlled substance to run
concurrently to each other and a term of imprisonment of five
years on the possession of a controlled substance with intent
to deliver to run consecutively to the other terms of
imprisonment. In discussing its decision to impose a
consecutive sentence, the court stated:
In balancing these factors, the Court concludes confinement
will be the order of the Court. I'm not going to run all
of these sentences consecutive. The Court believes adequate
rehabilitation can be done for this defendant, and deterrence
both specifically to him and to the community can be
satisfied if the first four counts are run concurrent, but
Count V is run consecutive, so the total sentence will be ten
Standard of Review
sentence falls within statutory limits, we review it for
abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545,
552 (Iowa 2015). The district court is required to exercise
its discretion when it imposes a sentence that is not
mandatory. State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa
argues the district court failed to adequately explain its
specific reasons for imposing a ...