from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K.
defendant appeals her sentences. AFFIRMED.
J. Kucera, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Tyler J. Buller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Doyle, J., and Blane, S.J.
Horak was sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed
five years for her convictions for forgery and gathering
where controlled substances are used and possessed
(methamphetamine). At the same sentencing hearing, the court
revoked Horak's probation in two additional cases and
imposed the original sentences: five years for forgery and
ten years for money laundering. The court ordered the
sentences resulting from the revoked probation to run
concurrent to each other but consecutive to the new
sentences, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed
appeals, claiming the district court failed to provide an
adequate explanation for imposing consecutive sentences using
the pertinent sentencing factors and reached its decision by
relying on improper factors. More specifically, Horak
complains the court imposed consecutive sentences because of
"the message it sends, " which she maintains is
neither an appropriate sentencing consideration nor an
review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for
correction of errors at law." 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."
Id. "A district court abuses its discretion
when it exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable
or to an extent clearly unreasonable. A district court's
ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by
substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous
application of the law." State v. Hill, 878
N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016) (citation omitted).
imposing the sentences, the court stated the following:
Now, the State is recommending that these two sentences run
concurrent to each other but consecutive to your other
sentences. Again, based upon your criminal history and your
conduct, I don't think that running all of these
sentences consecutively is out of line. However, I'll go
with the State's recommendation on these new charges and
run these two five-year sentences concurrently with each
other, but I do think that they should be consecutive to your
prior sentences because, again, being on probation and being
given several chances is not a license to go out and keep
committing crimes, and that's exactly what you've
done here. And to do anything other than give you a
consecutive sentence for these new offenses, to me, sends the
wrong message to you and the wrong message in general.
The consecutive sentences are warranted because these are new
offenses, and the fact that they were done when you were on
probation certainly heightens the seriousness in my mind.
And, again, I think they-these-both of these new ones do
warrant to be run consecutive with each other as well, but
I'm going with the State's recommendation and running
them concurrently. So you're going to prison for a total
of an indeterminate term not to exceed 15 years.
Now, on the flip side of this, if you are sincere with your
newfound motivation to make good, then you're going to
get a chance to do that. Prison will give you some programs
to deal with that and the Parole Board will take all that
into account. I'll certainly recommend to the Parole
Board that they consider all possible avenues and benefits
that they have at their disposal and under their
jurisdiction, and if you earn the right to be paroled, then
you should do that.
And I know you've been down this road before and you had
a chance at least once in the past where you were paroled and
had that revoked, but it looks like your-if your current
motivation continues, then ...