from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, John D.
Telleen (trial) and Henry W. Latham II (sentencing), Judges.
Moore appeals from judgment and sentences following his
D. Tindal of Keegan Tindal & Mason, Iowa City, for
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
Potterfield, Presiding Judge.
Moore appeals following a jury trial that resulted in
convictions for possession of crack cocaine with intent to
deliver, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(3)
and 124.401(1)(e) (2017) (firearm enhancement); failure to
affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of section 453B.12;
possession of a firearm by a domestic violence offender, in
violation of section 724.26(2)(a); carrying weapons, in
violation of section 724.4(1); interference with official
acts, in violation of section 719.1(1)(f); and assault
causing bodily injury, in violation of section 708.2(2).
Moore challenges the sentences imposed and claims trial
counsel was ineffective in stipulating that he was a
prohibited person and in failing to challenge the sufficiency
of evidence of his intent to deliver cocaine.
first asserts the district court failed to state sufficient
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We review
sentencing decisions for errors of law. State v.
Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We will only
reverse the district court if the court abused its discretion
or if there is a defect in the sentencing procedure.
State v. Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016).
sentencing hearing, the State noted that count one, the drug
offense with the firearm enhancement, required incarceration.
The State recommended that the sentence on that count run
consecutive "at a minimum at least to" the
conviction of possession of a firearm as a domestic violence
offender, noting the two counts "are absolutely separate
and distinct acts of criminal activity." The defense
asked that all sentences run concurrently because Moore was
facing a twenty-year sentence on the first count and "to
keep him in there for an extra five . . . doesn't do him
any more service in his rehabilitation."
the sentencing proceeding involved the six counts following
the jury trial, as well as three other charges to which Moore
pled guilty. The court imposed terms of incarceration on all
nine charges and stated:
As to any consecutive or concurrent sentencing in all of
these cases, it is the court's determination that the
State's recommendation as to Count 3 in FECR386810
[possession by a prohibited person] is appropriate given the
severity of the offenses, and I will make that count
consecutive, but I will deny the State's other requests
as to the other files. The other files will be served
concurrently. I feel for rehabilitation to occur in another
additional five years of incarceration is not necessary. I
would hope that Mr. Moore has learned from the seriousness of
these offenses and the sentencing that I have imposed at this
imposing consecutive sentences must state on the record its
reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. State v.
Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). At minimum, a
cursory explanation must be provided to allow review of the
trial court's discretionary action. Id. Our
review of the sentencing transcript shows the court gave
adequate reasons for requiring the consecutive sentences.