from the Iowa District Court for Appanoose County, Daniel P.
defendant appeals the sentences imposed by the district court
following his pleas of guilty. AFFIRMED.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Doyle and Tabor, JJ.
Smith asks to be resentenced following entry of judgment on
his guilty pleas to four crimes. Because the district court
adequately explained its reasoning on the record, we find no
abuse of discretion in its sentencing decision. Accordingly,
first six months of 2016, the State charged Smith with
multiple crimes arising out of three different incidents.
Smith eventually pleaded guilty to forgery, a class
"D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code sections
715A.2(1) and 715.2(2)(a) (2016); second-degree theft, a
class "D" felony, in violation of sections
714.1-.3; domestic-abuse assault while displaying a dangerous
weapon, an aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of section
708.2A(1) and (2)(c); and assault on a peace officer, an
aggravated misdemeanor, in violation of sections 708.1 and
.3A(3). In exchange for Smith's pleas of guilty, the
State agreed to dismiss the remaining charges.
prosecutor detailed the agreement on the record at the plea
hearing. For punishment, the parties agreed Smith would serve
two indeterminate two-year prison terms for the aggravated
misdemeanors, to be run concurrently, and two indeterminate
five-year prison terms for the felonies, to be run
concurrently. The two-year sentences would run consecutively
to the five-year sentences.
Smith's request, the court proceeded with sentencing
immediately and imposed terms in accordance with the plea
agreement. Smith now argues the district court failed to
provide sufficient reasons on the record for the chosen
review is for an abuse of discretion. See State v.
Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016). "A district
court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion
on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable." Id. We consider a district
court's sentencing decision "untenable when it is
not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on
an erroneous application of the law." See id.
(quoting State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1, 8 (2014)).
sentencing, the district court is required to "weigh all
pertinent matters in determining a proper sentence, including
the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the
defendant's age, character, and propensities or chances
for reform." State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402,
405 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v. Johnson, 476
N.W.2d 330, 335 (Iowa 1991)); see also Iowa Code
§ 907.5(1). In addition, the court must state on the
record its reasons for selecting the particular sentence.
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d); see also Hill, 878
N.W.2d at 275 ("Sentencing courts should also explicitly
state the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence . . .
."). The reasons "need not be detailed, [but] at
least a cursory explanation must be provided to allow
appellate review of the trial court's discretionary
action." State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 828
(Iowa 2010) (quoting State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d
679, 690 (Iowa 2000)).
assuming the district court was required to provide reasons
beyond giving effect to the parties' agreement, see
Thacker, 862 N.W.2d at 410,  we find the court's
on-the-record rationale sufficient here. First, the court
explained it had considered its sentencing options under Iowa
Code section 901.5 and then stated: "The sentence
I'm about to impose in each of these counts or cases is
that which I hope will eventually help lead towards your
rehabilitation while at the same time protecting the
community from further offenses by you and others."
after admitting a document detailing Smith's criminal
history- which spanned over twenty years and included
convictions for assault, stalking, harassment, operating
while intoxicated, and burglary-the court continued: "I
have considered the information in the files that relates to
your age, employment, family, education, and other background
and circumstances. I have considered your prior criminal