from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Jeffrey L.
defendant appeals his sentence. AFFIRMED.
B. Brock II of Law Office of Robert B. Brock II, P.C., Le
Mars, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor,
Lee appeals the sentence he received for his conviction for
theft in the second degree-a term of incarceration not to
exceed five years. He maintains the district court failed to
adequately state its reasons on the record for the sentence
it imposed. He asks that we remand for resentencing.
review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law.
State v. Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016).
"We will not reverse the decision of the district court
absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the
sentencing procedure." Id. (citation omitted).
Where, as here, the sentence imposed is within the statutory
limits, it is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor.
See State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa
2000); see also Iowa Code §§ 714.2(2)
(2017) (providing theft in the second degree is a
"D" felony), 902.9(1)(e) (stating a class
"D" felon "shall be confined for no more than
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the sentencing
court to adequately cite its reasons for the sentence on the
record. Failure to do so is ordinarily reversible error.
See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Iowa
2015). The court's stated reasons must be
"sufficient to allow meaningful appellate review."
Id. The statements may be "succinct and terse .
. . as long as the brevity displayed does not prevent us from
reviewing the exercise of the trial court's sentencing
discretion." State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11
(Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
sentencing hearing, the State advocated for the court to
impose a term of incarceration, while Lee requested that the
court suspend the sentence and order Lee to obtain a
mental-health evaluation and follow through with any
treatment prescribed. The court sentenced Lee to a term of
incarceration not to exceed five years, stating:
The Court has considered all of the sentencing options
available to it under Iowa law.
Mr. Lee, I've-I've pondered what to do with your
file, and simply I'm having difficulty finding redeeming
value. You've been in trouble before, you've been on
probation, you-you were in trouble even after arrested. And I
just don't see that a period of probation is going to do
anything than delay the inevitable.
Therefore I am going to impose the five-year sentence
recommended in the Presentence Investigation report. . . .
The reasons supporting this sentence include those I've
already stated, plus the Court's determination that
incarceration will provide for the maximum opportunity for
defendant's rehabilitation. The court finds it's
necessary for the protection of the community from further
offenses by this defendant and others. I have considered
defendant's age, prior record, the fact that ...