from the Iowa District Court for Clinton County, Nancy S.
Tabor and Mark R. Lawson, Judges.
defendant appeals the district court's imposition of a
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Stephan J. Japuntich,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Potterfield and Mullins, JJ.
Tabor, J., takes no part.
Background Facts and Proceedings
Hammer pled guilty to third-degree sexual abuse, in violation
of Iowa Code sections 709.1(1) and 709.4(1)(a) (2014),
domestic abuse assault by impeding airflow, in violation of
section 708.2A(5), and false imprisonment, in violation of
section 710.7. The facts supporting Hammer's guilty plea
included Hammer placing his ex-girlfriend in a choke-hold and
binding her hands and feet together using zip-ties. The
victim was able to free herself and instructed Hammer to
leave so as not to upset her young child. When the victim
went downstairs to do laundry, Hammer followed and sexually
district court imposed a sentence, including concurrent and
consecutive sentences, which amounted to a total of fifteen
years in prison. Hammer appeals claiming the court erred by
considering his pretrial-release revocation and failing to
consider mitigating circumstances.
Scope of Review
[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular
sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong
presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an
abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate
matters. An abuse of discretion will not be found unless we
are able to discern that the decision was exercised on
grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or
State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
district court should "state on the record its reason
for selecting the particular sentence." Iowa R. Crim. P.
2.23(3)(d). "This requirement includes giving reasons
for imposing consecutive sentences." State v.
Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010). The reasons
need not be detailed, though "at least a cursory
explanation must be provided to allow for appellate
review." Id. The court considers a host of
factors including nature of the offense, the attending