State v. Hill
| Citation | 878 N.W.2d 269 |
| Decision Date | 22 April 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–0030.,15–0030. |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Donald James HILL, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Tyler J. Buller, Assistant Attorney General, Michael Walton, County Attorney, and Steven A. Berger, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WATERMAN
, Justice.
In this appeal, we must decide whether the presumption for consecutive sentences in Iowa Code section 908.10A (2013)
excuses the district court from the general requirement to state why it imposed a consecutive sentence and, if not, whether the district court's stated reason for this consecutive sentence was adequate. The defendant pled guilty to failure to comply with sex-offender registry requirements, an offense he committed while on parole for the underlying sex crime. The district court imposed a two-year prison sentence consecutive to his parole revocation and stated, "The reason for the sentence is protection of the community, seriousness of the crime, and the nature and circumstances of the offense." The defendant appealed on grounds that the sentencing court failed to give reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the statutory presumption for consecutive sentences obviated any need to give reasons for imposing the consecutive sentence. The dissenting judge disagreed, noting section 908.10A allows discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences, requiring the sentencing court to give reasons for its choice. On further review, we hold the district court must give reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence under section 908.10A and that the reasons given in this case were insufficient. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals, vacate the sentencing order, and remand the case for resentencing.
In 2010, Donald James Hill was convicted of burglary in the third degree and assault with intent to commit sexual abuse and sentenced to prison. He was required to register as a sex offender. Hill was paroled on June 6, 2013. As a condition of his parole, he was required to wear an ankle bracelet with a GPS monitor. On August 4, 2014, Hill reported to the Iowa Sex Offender Registry that he was residing at Bridge Avenue in Davenport, Iowa. He was provided with the rules of the registry that day informing him that he must report any change in address within five days. Hill moved to the City of Clinton, Iowa, four days later without reporting his change in address. Shortly thereafter, Hill violated his parole by cutting off his ankle bracelet and traveling to Kentucky to attempt to meet with his ex-wife. A warrant for his arrest for the parole violation was issued in Clinton County on August 26. The next day, a Davenport police officer, Thomas Leonard, learned Hill was incarcerated in Kentucky. Hill told the Kentucky officials that he resided in Clinton. On October 27, the State charged Hill with failure to comply with sex-offender registry requirements in violation of Iowa Code section 692A.111(1)
.1 Hill filed a written plea of guilty to that charge on December 3, which the Scott County District Court accepted on December 10.
Hill appeared with counsel at his sentencing hearing in Davenport on January 2, 2015. The State asked for a two-year prison term for the sex-offender registry conviction to be served consecutive to Hill's parole revocation. Hill requested a suspended sentence. The district court orally imposed the following sentence:
I am going to sentence you to the two years in prison, and it is consecutive to the parole [revocation] in FECR062306, which I understand is out of Clinton County. I will give you credit for the time served. The reason for the sentence is protection of the community, seriousness of the crime, and the nature and circumstances of the offense.
The district court issued this written sentencing order:
Pursuant to Defendant's plea of guilty to Count 1, Failure to Register as a Sex Offender, First Offense, in violation of Section 692A.104, Defendant is sentenced to the custody of the Director of the Iowa Department of Adult Corrections for a period not to exceed two years, to run consecutive to the parole revocation in Clinton County in Case No. FECR062306. Credit is given for time served. The Iowa Medical and Classification Center, Oakdale, Iowa, is designated as the reception center. In addition, defendant is ordered to pay court appointed attorney fees not to exceed $1,000. Court costs and fines are waived. Defendant was advised of his right to appeal. Appeal bond is set at $2,000.
The district court did not refer to the statutory presumption for consecutive sentences.
Hill appealed his sentence, contending the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for the consecutive sentence. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. A divided court of appeals affirmed Hill's sentence because, "under section 908.10A
, the default or presumptive sentence is a consecutive sentence. The statute itself is sufficient reason for imposing consecutive sentences." The dissent concluded "[s]ection 908.10A empowers the district court to impose the sentences consecutively or concurrently," which "implicates the court's discretion and ... requires a court to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences." The dissent found the district court failed to exercise its discretion.
We granted Hill's application for further review.
"We review the district court's sentence for an abuse of discretion." State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010)
. A district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. A district court's "ground or reason is untenable when it is not supported by substantial evidence or when it is based on an erroneous application of the law." State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1, 8 (Iowa 2014) (quoting In re Det. of Stenzel, 827 N.W.2d 690, 697 (Iowa 2013) ). "When a sentence is not mandatory, the district court must exercise its discretion...." State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426, 433 (Iowa 2005) (quoting State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996) ).
We must decide whether the presumption for consecutive sentences in Iowa Code section 908.10A
, the parole-revocation sentencing statute, permits the district court to impose a consecutive sentence without stating a reason for doing so. Hill argues, and the court of appeals dissent concluded, the district court abused its discretion by failing to explain why it imposed a consecutive sentence. The State contends, and the court of appeals majority held, the district court need not state any reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence because of the presumption for consecutive sentences in section 908.10A. The State alternatively argues the district court exercised its discretion and adequately explained the reasons for the consecutive sentence. We interpret the statute to require an explanation for a consecutive sentence and conclude the district court's explanation fell short.
(Emphasis added.) The plain language of section 908.10A
makes clear that consecutive sentences are presumed, albeit not required, and are the default option unless the district court orders a concurrent term. See id. Yet, section 908.10A expressly allows the district court to impose a concurrent sentence, which necessarily gives the district court discretion to impose the sentence concurrently or consecutively. Id.; see also id. § 901.8 (). Thus, the district court had discretion when sentencing Hill for the sex-offender-registry charge to impose the prison sentence to run concurrent or consecutive to the prison sentence for his parole revocation. The district court imposed a consecutive sentence. Was the sentencing court required to give reasons for imposing the consecutive sentence? The court of appeals majority concluded the statutory presumption for a consecutive sentence obviated the need to give reasons. We disagree.
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." Rule 2.23(3)(d ) applies to the district court's decision to impose consecutive sentences. State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). In State v. Thompson, we reiterated the purposes served by requiring the sentencing court to explain its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. 856 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Iowa 2014). First, "[t]his requirement ensures defendants are well aware of the consequences of their criminal actions." Id. Second, and "[m]ost importantly," this requirement "affords our appellate courts the opportunity to review the discretion of the sentencing court." Id. Both purposes are served when offenders are sentenced under section 908.10A
. We hold that rule 2.23(3)(d ) applies to require the district court to state the reasons for its sentence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Christensen
...State further recognizes that in State v. Johnson , 445 N.W.2d 337, 342 (Iowa 1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hill , 878 N.W.2d 269, 274–75 (Iowa 2016), we held that outside information relayed to the jury before or during jury deliberations exceeds the permissible bounds of j......
-
State v. Crooks, 16-0851
...v.Thompson , 836 N.W.2d 470, 483 (Iowa 2013). "We review the district court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion." State v. Hill , 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016) (quoting State v. Barnes , 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010) ).III. Analysis.Crooks raises several challenges to the youthful off......
-
State v. Majors
...... See State v. Hill , 878 N.W.2d 269, 275–76 (Iowa 2016) (Appel, J., concurring specially) (noting the critical nature of sentencing within criminal proceedings and ......
-
League of United Latin Am. Citizens of Iowa v. Pate
...court abuses its discretion" by issuing a decision that "is based on an erroneous application of the law.") (quoting State v. Hill , 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016) ). While the majority doesn't put much stock in the differences required by the appropriate standard of review, the district c......