State v. Cooper, 86-293
| Decision Date | 25 February 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-293,86-293 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Frederick COOPER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Gary K. Anderson of Anderson & Wheeler, Council Bluffs, for defendant-appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Atty. Gen., Lona Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Kenneth Tyler, Asst. Co. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Considered by OXBERGER, C.J., and DONIELSON and SNELL, JJ.
On February 7, 1986, the appellant, James Frederick Cooper, was charged by trial information with driving while license under suspension. See Iowa Code § 321A.17 (1985). On that same date Cooper, appearing by counsel, submitted a written plea of guilty. On February 21, 1986, Cooper was sentenced to one year in the county jail and fined five hundred dollars. All but one hundred dollars of the fine was suspended on the condition that Cooper perform forty hours of community service, with credit given for attendance at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. All but thirty days of the sentence was suspended on the condition that defendant, among other things, "complete an alcohol evaluation and follow all recommendations." This appeal followed, challenging the sentence imposed by the district court. Our review is limited to the correction of errors at law. Iowa R.App.P. 4.
Cooper challenges his sentence in two respects. First, he contends the court erred in failing to state on the record its reasons for choosing the particular sentence it imposed. Second, he maintains the court abused its discretion in requiring, as a condition of his suspended sentence, that he complete an alcohol evaluation. This second argument is premised on Cooper's contentions that the present charges against him are not alcohol-related and that he has not been arrested for an alcohol-related offense in seven years.
Rule 22(3)(d) of the Iowa Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, inter alia, that when sentencing a defendant the district The "record" for purposes of criminal appeals consists of "[t]he original papers and exhibits filed in the trial court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket and court calendar entries...." Iowa R.App.P. 10(a). When a trial court fails to state on the record its reasons for the sentence imposed, the sentence must be vacated and the case remanded for amplification of the record and resentencing. State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 589 (Iowa 1980); Luedtke, 279 N.W.2d at 8.
In the present case, no transcript was made of the sentencing hearing. The State defends the district court's sentence, however, by arguing that the reasons behind the district court's choice of the particular sentence imposed are both stated on its sentencing order and sufficiently obvious from the remainder of the record when considered in light of the sentencing order. In support of these contentions, the State points to the sentencing order which tersely states that "[t]he Court has reviewed the circumstances of the offense, and the defendant's prior background, [sic]" and asks that we find this sufficient. We do not.
The main purpose of the requirement that a court state its reason for a particular sentence is to allow us to review the sentence to determine if there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Matlock, 304 N.W.2d 226, 228 (Iowa 1981); State v. Luedtke, 279 N.W.2d 7, 8 (Iowa 1979). A general statement such as the one employed by the district court in the present case does not assist us in such a determination. We note that Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(3)(d) reflects our courts' belief that "[w]ithout question, articulation of the rationale undergirding a sentence ... assist[s] both trial court and the appellate court on review." Luedtke, 279 N.W.2d at 8 (quoting State v. Horton, 231 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa 1975)). The present record, far from articulating the rationale behind the court's choice of sentence, states only generalized, vague considerations which we may assume advise every court in making every sentencing decision: the circumstances of the offense and the defendant's background. We are left to speculate as to which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thacker, 14–0374.
...of reasons for imposing a particular sentence. Id. at 304–05.4 In a somewhat similar vein, the court of appeals in State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa Ct.App.1987), considered the statement: “[t]he Court has reviewed the circumstances of the offense, and the defendant's prior backgro......
-
State v. Jorden
...to be served consecutively with the sentence Jorden was then serving. Jorden likens the present record to the record in State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa App.1987). In Cooper, we concluded we were unable to determine whether the sentencing court had abused its discretion because the rec......
-
State v. Thompson
...court considered “the circumstances of the offense and the defendant's background,” when it pronounced its sentence. State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa Ct.App.1987). In reaching its conclusion, the court of appeals said “[t]he present record, far from articulating the rationale behi......
-
State v. Ashmore
...“only generalized, vague considerations which we may assume advise every court in making every sentencing decision.” State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa Ct.App.1987). Rather, the court should give a “rationale relating to this offense, and this defendant's background.” Lumadue, 622 N......