STATE v. NELMS (2021)

Court of Appeals of Iowa.2021-04-14No. No. 20-1090

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the consecutive sentences, finding that the district court provided sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d).

Adam Nelms pleaded guilty to multiple offenses including burglary, methamphetamine possession, and theft, and received consecutive sentences. He appealed, arguing the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences as required by Iowa procedural rules. The court had explained that it imposed consecutive sentences based on the separate and serious nature of the offenses, consistency with the presentence investigation report's recommendation, and the need to balance rehabilitation with public protection.

The appellate court found that the district court's explanation met the legal requirement, even though it was brief. Iowa law does not demand extensive detail but requires at least a minimal explanation to enable meaningful appellate review. The court's stated reasons—the gravity and distinctness of the crimes and the recommendation in the presentence report—were sufficient to justify the consecutive sentencing decision.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a district court must state explicit reasons for imposing consecutive sentences
Whether cursory or minimal explanation satisfies the requirement for appellate review
Whether the district court's stated reasons adequately supported the consecutive sentencing decision

Procedural posture

Nelms appealed his consecutive sentences imposed following guilty pleas to multiple felony offenses.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Adam Nelms appeals the imposition of consecutive sentences upon his convictions, following guilty pleas,

of two counts of third-degree burglary, two counts of second-offense possession of methamphetamine, and one count of third-degree theft. He argues “the district court failed to explicitly state the reasons for imposing consecutive sentences.”

“Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the district court to ‘state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence.’ ” State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 273 (Iowa 2016). The rule “applies to the district courts decision to impose consecutive sentences.” Id. “Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial courts discretionary action.” State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). A sentencing “court may rely on the same reasons for imposing a sentence of incarceration.” Hill, 878 N.W.2d at 275. However, appellate courts are not allowed “to infer the same reasons applied as part of an overall sentencing scheme,” and, as such, “[s]entencing courts should also explicitly state the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.” Id.

In choosing to impose a term of imprisonment instead of a suspended sentence and probation, the court noted its consideration of the presentence investigation report (PSI) and recommendation, a victim impact statement, protection of the public, Nelmss rehabilitation, his significant criminal history, and his refusal to take responsibility for his actions. After stating its decision to run Nelmss sentences consecutively instead of concurrently, the court explained:

Im doing that because of the separate and serious nature of your offenses. Im doing it because its consistent with the recommendations of the PSI, and Im also doing it because in my own view its the only way we can accomplish the—that we can confidently accomplish the goals of sentencing. Which are to give you the maximum opportunity for your own rehabilitation, but at the same time protect the public from you.

Upon our review, we find the district courts cursory explanation sufficient to allow appellate review of the trial courts discretionary action and the court provided sufficient reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences. See Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d at 690. We affirm without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e).

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

. The State agrees Nelms has “good cause” to appeal because he is challenging the sentences imposed instead of his guilty pleas. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2020); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104 (Iowa 2020).

MULLINS, Judge.