State of Iowa v. Elisa Marie Harper , 919 N.W.2d 767 ( 2018 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1447
Filed June 6, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ELISA MARIE HARPER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson,
Judge.
The defendant appeals her sentence. SENTENCE VACATED AND
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Andrew J. Dunn of Parrish Kruidenier Dunn Boles Gribble Gentry Brown &
Bergmann L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Elisa Harper appeals the sentence imposed by the district court for her
conviction for fourth-degree theft. She maintains the district court failed to
adequately state its reasons on the record for the sentence it imposed and asks
that we remand for resentencing.
We 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).
Harper was originally charged by trial information with extortion, a class “D”
felony. In a written guilty plea, Harper pled guilty to theft in the fourth degree. Her
written plea states that the plea agreement is “susp sent. prob w/ mental health
treatment and rest.” Sentencing was unreported, but the form sentencing order
establishes that Harper was sentenced to a suspended one-year sentence with
one year of probation and ordered to obtain a mental-health evaluation, follow
treatment recommendations, and make restitution.
Under the section of the sentencing order that provides for “sentencing
considerations,” the court failed to check any boxes that indicate what factors the
court found significant in determining the sentence. The court also did not check
the “plea agreement” box.
Harper maintains we should remand for resentencing because the court
violated its duty to provide reasons on the record for the sentence imposed. See
Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). As she correctly notes, “[w]hen the defendant waives
the reporting of the sentencing hearing,” rule 2.23(3)(d) “requires the judge to
3
include in his or her sentencing order the reason for the sentence” imposed. State
v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 920–21. The State responds that the court need
not provide reasons for the sentence imposed because the court was merely giving
effect to the parties’ agreement. See State v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755, 757 (Iowa
1995). But such an argument misses the mark. The court was not bound by the
plea agreement, and it is unclear from the record before us if the court chose to
sentence Harper pursuant to the agreement or if the court exercised discretion in
imposing the sentence. We cannot assume the court gave effect to the agreement.
See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 410 (Iowa 2015) (remanding to the district
court for resentencing when the district court remarked that it was sentencing the
defendant subject to the plea agreement but the agreement was not contained in
the record, preventing the appellate court from determining if sentencing had
actually taken place pursuant to the agreement). “Looking on the record, we do
not know whether the district court exercised its discretion, simply accepted the
parties agreement, or did a little of both.” Id.We cannot conclude the district court adequately stated reasons for its
sentence on the record as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d).
Thus, we vacate the sentence and remand to the district court for resentencing.
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.