Opinion
No. 2-467 / 01-1844.
Filed August 14, 2002.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, SCOTT D. ROSENBERG, Judge.
Defendant appeals from the sentence entered upon his guilty plea to six counts of delivery of methamphetamine and six counts of failure to affix a tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl Soich, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Daniel Voogt, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by SACKETT, C.J. and HUITINK and HECHT, JJ.
Nheu Van Cam alleges the district court erred in failing to provide sufficient reasons for its imposition of consecutive sentences. We affirm.
The State charged Cam with six counts of delivery of methamphetamine in excess of five grams, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(b)(7) (1999), and six counts of failure to possess a tax stamp, in violation of sections 453B.3 and 453B.12. The parties later reached a plea agreement in which Cam agreed to plead guilty to all counts and be able to argue any applicable sentence. In return, the State agreed to drop a firearm enhancement and to recommend a sentence totaling no more than fifty years.
The court accepted Cam's guilty plea to the twelve charges. At the subsequent sentencing hearing, the court sentenced Cam to a term of imprisonment not to exceed twenty-five years on each of the six delivery counts. The court ordered that two of the counts be served consecutively, and the rest concurrently. The court also sentenced Cam to a term of imprisonment not to exceed five years on each of the tax stamp counts, and ordered that they be run concurrently with each other, and concurrently with the twenty-five year delivery terms. The court explained its reasoning for the sentence as follows:
The Court finds this sentence is appropriate in that the public deserves protection from the defendant. He has a criminal history and has been granted probation four times in the past. The court feels it is necessary to make sure the defendant is incarcerated for a period of time to protect the public from any further criminal activity.
Also, in its subsequent written order, the court stated:
In determining that Defendant should be incarcerated, the Court has determined that probation would not provide reasonable protection of the public and maximum opportunity for rehabilitation of Defendant. The Court has further considered the age of Defendant, as well as Defendant's prior criminal record, and that probation would lessen the seriousness of the offense.
Cam appeals from this sentence contending the court erred in failing to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. We review the record to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion, by failing to state reasons for the sentence imposed. State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998).
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires a trial court to state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence. State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court's discretionary action. Id. A trial court must also give reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences. See State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000).
Cam asked for a twenty-five-year indeterminate sentence while the State, pursuant to the plea agreement, argued a fifty-year sentence was appropriate. It is clear no portion of a sentence for a violation of section 124.401(1)(b) may be suspended. Iowa Code§ 907.3(3)(e). A sentence of imprisonment on the delivery charge was mandatory. Thus, notwithstanding the sentencing court's reference to probation, the only issue before it was whether the sentences would be concurrent or consecutive. Any reasons given by the court regarding its motivation for the particular sentence, therefore, must have pertained to its choice to run the two sentences consecutively. We conclude the comments made by the court at the sentencing hearing and in its subsequent written order therefore are sufficient for us to determine why the court ordered consecutive sentences. See State v. Uthe, 542 N.W.2d 810, 816 (Iowa 1996) (stating the comments must give us a clue as to the court's reasoning). Moreover, we conclude the sentence imposed was within the district court's discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the sentence.
AFFIRMED.