State of Iowa v. Zachary Donovan Lee , 919 N.W.2d 767 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                      THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
    No. 17-2046
    Filed June 6, 2018
    STATE OF IOWA,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,
    vs.
    ZACHARY DONOVAN LEE,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Jeffrey L. Poulson,
    Judge.
    The defendant appeals his sentence. AFFIRMED.
    Robert B. Brock II of Law Office of Robert B. Brock II, P.C., Le Mars, 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.
    Zachary Lee appeals the sentence he received for his conviction for theft in
    the second degree—a term of incarceration not to exceed five years.1                 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.
    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). 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 five years”).
    Iowa 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).
    1
    Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lee also entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of
    fourth-degree criminal mischief, for which he was sentenced to 120 days in jail that were
    to be served consecutively to the sentence the court chose to impose for the second-
    degree theft conviction. Lee does not challenge his sentence for criminal mischief in the
    fourth degree.
    3
    At the 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 he doesn’t
    have a job, the contents of the Presentence Investigation, and the
    plea agreement.
    In its written judgment and sentence, the court indicated the same factors were the
    reason for the sentence imposed.
    Lee maintains the district court provided only “boilerplate language,” which
    is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 2.23(3)(d). See Thacker, 862
    N.W.2d at 410. We disagree. The district court’s recitation of reasons establishes
    that the court considered facts and circumstances specific to Lee and then
    exercised its discretion in determining what sentence to impose. We cannot say
    4
    the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Lee to a term of incarceration
    not to exceed five years.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-2046

Citation Numbers: 919 N.W.2d 767

Filed Date: 6/6/2018

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023