State of Iowa v. Brian Thomas Woods

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: August 7, 2024
• Docket: 24-0412
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-0412 Filed August 7, 2024

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRIAN THOMAS WOODS, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Robert J. Richter,

Judge.

A defendant appeals his criminal sentences. AFFIRMED.

Gregory F. Greiner, West Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., Schumacher, J., and Mullins, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206

(2024). 2

MULLINS, Senior Judge.

Brian Woods pled guilty in three separate cases to interference with official

acts while displaying a dangerous weapon, assault while displaying a dangerous

weapon, assault with intent to inflict serious injury, and assault causing bodily

injury. At the sentencing hearing encompassing all cases, the district court

summarily sentenced him in accordance with the terms of the universal plea

agreement, which included the foregoing charges being served concurrently with

one another but consecutive to the sentence imposed in a separate case.

Woods appeals. While he agrees “that the district court did not depart from

the terms of the plea agreement,” he argues the district “court erred by not stating

on the record nor its sentencing orders the reasons for selecting a particular

sentence,” which “makes it impossible to assess whether there was an abuse of

discretion in sentencing him to a consecutive sentence.” But each of the three

sentencing orders noted the nature and circumstances of the crimes as well as the

plea agreement as the reasons for imposing the consecutive portion of the

sentences. See, e.g., State v. Eaton, No. 01-2024, 2002 WL 1842923, at *1 (Iowa

Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2002) (finding “the nature of the crime” was a sufficient reason

for imposing a consecutive sentence). Even if it hadn’t, a statement of reasons for

selecting a particular sentence is not required when it is “not the product of the

exercise of trial court discretion but of the process of giving effect to the parties’

agreement.” State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (quoting State v.

Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728, 729 (Iowa 1983)); accord State v. Wilbourn, 974

N.W.2d 58, 68 (Iowa 2022) (“It is not an abuse of discretion for the court to impose

a sentence consistent with the parties’ plea agreement without giving additional 3

reasons for rejecting other sentencing options.”); State v. Cason, 532

N.W.2d 755, 756 (Iowa 1995) (per curiam) (noting a statement of “reasons for

imposition of sentence would serve no useful purpose” where the parties “have

approved a plea agreement and the sentencing court incorporates the plea

agreement in the sentence”).

Here, the district court provided sufficient reasons for imposing the

consecutive portion of the sentences. Even if it hadn’t, it wasn’t required to. We

affirm without further opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e).

AFFIRMED.