from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kim M.
Riley, District Associate Judge.
defendant appeals his sentence and restitution order after
pleading guilty to theft and driving while barred.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Ashley Stewart,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
Lathrop challenges his sentence for second-degree theft and
driving while barred. First, he contends the district court
did not provide sufficient reasons for the sentence imposed.
Second, he argues the district court abused its discretion by
holding him responsible for an unknown amount of restitution
without determining he had the reasonable ability to pay.
Because the district court gave effect to the parties'
plea agreement when imposing the sentence and had not yet
issued the final plan of restitution, we affirm.
Facts and Prior Proceedings
faced criminal charges for writing an insufficient-funds
check to Menards and driving his truck to pick up the
merchandise without a valid license. After reaching an
agreement with the State, Lathrop pleaded guilty to
second-degree theft and driving while barred. In exchange,
the State dismissed several less serious charges and
recommended terms of imprisonment, fines, costs, and
restitution. During the plea hearing, the court heard the
negotiated provisions and ensured the parties' assent to
the terms. Consistent with those terms, the court imposed
indeterminate two-year and five-year prison sentences to run
February 2018 judgment entry, the court ordered Lathrop to
pay victim restitution of $1137.16, court costs including
correctional fees "as certified by the Sheriff,
" and court-appointed attorney fees. In the
judgment entry, the court did not determine Lathrop's
reasonable ability to pay restitution. Lathrop appeals.
Reasons for Sentence
review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153, 161 (Iowa 2018).
"A district court abuses its discretion when it
exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to
an extent clearly unreasonable." State v. Hill,
878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016).
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the district
court to "state on the record its reason for selecting
the particular sentence." Id. at 273. This
requirement "ensures defendants are well aware of the
consequences of their criminal actions" and
"affords our appellate courts the opportunity to review
the discretion of the sentencing court." Id.
(citing State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa
2000)). Even a "terse and succinct" statement may