from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
Edwards appeals her conviction for driving while barred.
M. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Edwards appeals her conviction for driving while barred,
claiming the court made several sentencing errors. We find
the court considered all required and relevant factors in
making its sentencing determination and gave adequate
explanation for the sentence, and evidence supports the
sentence. We affirm.
9, 2017, Edwards was stopped for speeding twelve over the
limit in a fifty-five mile per hour speed zone. Upon review
of Edwards's driver status, the deputy determined her
driving privileges were barred and arrested her.
August 22, Edwards signed a waiver of rights and guilty plea.
Her plea was accepted on October 3, for driving while barred,
in violation of Iowa Code sections 321.555 and 321.561
(2017); she requested immediate sentencing. The court
sentenced Edwards to 270 days in jail, with 180 days
suspended, and work release. The court suspended the fine,
but imposed fees and costs up to $500, to be paid in
installments of fifty dollars per month. Finally, the court
ordered two years unsupervised probation.
asserts the court abused its discretion in sentencing by
failing to consider all required and relevant factors.
Edwards admits the sentence falls within the statutory
limits, yet seeks remand for resentencing.
to sentences that are within the statutory limits are
reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Roby,
897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017). An appellate court does not
second-guess the sentence chosen but examines the record and
determines if the sentence was reached on untenable or
unreasonable grounds. State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d
153, 173 (Iowa 2018). There is a strong presumption of proper
discretion in sentencing decisions. Id. at 171.
Furthermore, the burden is upon the defendant to show an
abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. Id. If
the evidence supports the sentence, there has been no abuse
of discretion. Id. at 173.
sentencing, the court considers a multitude of factors
including the protection of the community, the rehabilitation
of the offender, the crime itself, the surrounding
circumstances, and the age and characteristics of the
offender evidencing the likelihood of rehabilitation or
repeat offense. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720,
724-25 (Iowa 2002). Additionally, prior to suspending a
sentence, the court must consider an offender's criminal
and sentencing history, familial situation, employment
status, and any other pertinent factors relevant to the goals
of sentencing. Id. at 725. The sentencing court need
not explain how every factor was considered or not
considered. State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1995).
is required to explain why the particular sentence imposed
was chosen, but not why alternative sentences were rejected.
Crooks, 911 N.W.2d at 171. Forms allowing the
efficient administration of justice by reducing a sentencing
explanation from a written statement to a checked box can be
sufficient. State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 921
(Iowa 2014). Relying upon cases dealing with consecutive
sentencing and resentencing of juveniles once they become
adults, Edwards contends there is a trend toward requiring
more exacting sentencing explanations. If there is such a