Opinion
No. 2-955 / 02-0403
Filed January 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Douglas McDonald, District Associate Judge.
The defendant appeals his consecutive sentences for operating while intoxicated, third offense, in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2(2)(c) (2001). AFFIRMED.
Murray Bell of Murray W. Bell, P.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, William Davis, County Attorney, and Alan Havercamp and Marc Gellerman, Assistant County Attorneys, for appellee.
Considered by Huitink, P.J., and Mahan and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
Al Hanke appeals his sentences following his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, third offense. See Iowa Code § 321J.2(2)(c) (2001). He contends the district court failed to give adequate reasons for imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for the three offenses. See State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000) (holding trial court must give reasons for imposing consecutive sentences).
At sentencing, the district court summarized Hanke's offenses, noting the first one involved an accident, the second one also involved an accident and occurred ten days later when Hanke was not supposed to be driving, and the third occurred within three weeks of the second and three days after Hanke had completed an alcohol rehabilitation program. The court stated Hanke's actions were "about as bad as it gets." The court explained,
And I have no idea what was going through your mind when — I realize that people have a problem with alcohol, they make a mistake, they get caught for drunk driving, but to then continue to do that while your cases are pending, and somebody pays men to bond you out of jail, you'd do it again, not once but twice, and that's the unusual thing about this case, and I don't know what motivates you to do that. Somebody that has the ability to do well in life if they wanted to, to do that, to put other people in harm's way.
After imposing the consecutive sentences, the court stated, "[a]nd I've done that because of the nature of these charges, the fact that you continued to drive after you were arrested on the first one, and for two different and subsequent occasions."
These reasons are sufficient to support the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences. See State v. Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637, 641-42 (Iowa 2002); State v. Jacobs, 644 N.W.2d 695, 700 (Iowa 2002).