State of Iowa v. Cody Wess Minenga

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-1215
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1215 Filed July 23, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CODY WESS MINENGA, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, Steven J. Holwerda,

Judge.

Cody Minenga appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to

second-degree harassment. CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCES

VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Zachary Miller, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Bower,

S.J.*

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

(2025). 2

BOWER, Senior Judge.

Cody Minenga pled guilty to second-degree harassment. At a combined

sentencing hearing for that case and a case in which he was convicted of operating

while intoxicated (OWI) and carrying weapons, Minenga was sentenced to ninety-

day terms of incarceration on both the harassment conviction and the weapons

conviction and one year of incarceration on the OWI conviction. The district court

ran the OWI and weapons sentences concurrently but ordered the harassment

sentence to be served consecutively to the OWI sentence.

On appeal,1 Minenga claims the court erred by “fail[ing] to give adequate

reasons for ordering the sentences to run consecutively to each other.” 2 “Our

review of the defendant’s sentence is for the correction of errors at law. We will

not reverse a sentence unless there is an abuse of discretion or some defect in the

sentencing procedure.” State v. Cole, ___ N.W.3d ___, ___, 2025 WL 1774150,

at *4 (Iowa 2025) (cleaned up).

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(2)(g) requires the court to “particularly

state the reason for imposition of any consecutive sentence.” See also State v.

Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 273 (Iowa 2016). The State concurs the court “failed to

adequately explain its decision to run the harassment sentence consecutively to

the OWI sentence.” Although the court provided reasons for the sentences

imposed, “[n]othing in th[e sentencing] order, or the court’s statements at the

1 Minenga has good cause for this appeal. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). 2 Minenga also challenges the length of the sentence imposed for his OWI

conviction. But as the State correctly points out, “that case is not a part of this appeal.” Minenga may challenge his OWI conviction in an appeal from that case; we cannot address it here. 3

sentencing hearing, tied its reasoning to the imposition of consecutive sentences.”

State v. Archer, No. 24-0293, 2025 WL 271628, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 23,

2025). “While a sentencing ‘court may rely on the same reasons for imposing a

sentence of incarceration,’ we cannot ‘infer the same reasons applied as part of

an overall sentencing scheme.’” Id. (quoting Hill, 878 N.W.2d at 275). Because

the court did not state its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, we vacate

Minenga’s sentences and remand for resentencing. See State v. Duffield, 16

N.W.3d 298, 303–04 (Iowa 2025).

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCES VACATED AND REMANDED

FOR RESENTENCING.