IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1580 Filed December 21, 2016
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
KEVIN EUGENE JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Steven J.
Andreasen, Judge.
Defendant appeals his convictions for three counts of burglary in the third
degree; one count of theft in the first degree; and one count of theft in the second
degree. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Martha J. Lucey, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., Tabor, J., and Blane, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015). 2
BLANE, Senior Judge.
The State charged defendant Kevin Johnson with Count 1: burglary in the
third degree of a Family Dollar store on March 17, 2014; Count 2: burglary in the
third degree of a Jehovah’s Witness Church on March 17, 2014; Count 3:
burglary in the third degree of the L & K Laundry on January 24, 2014; Count 4:
theft in the first degree for property taken at the L & K Laundry; and Count 5: theft
in the second degree for property taken at the Family Dollar. The State also
alleged Johnson was subject to the habitual offender enhancement on each
count. On December 30, 2014, Johnson stipulated he had been previously
convicted of at least two felonies and was subject to the habitual offender
enhancement.
Johnson waived a jury, and a trial to the court commenced on January 6,
2015. On May 24, 2015, the trial court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law
and verdict—guilty on all counts as charged with the habitual offender
enhancement. Johnson was sentenced on September 18, 2015, to
imprisonment for a period not to exceed fifteen years on each count. Count 1
was ordered to be served consecutively to Count 3. Johnson filed a timely notice
of appeal on September 21, 2015. On appeal, he claims (1) the convictions
cannot stand as the testimony of the accomplice was not corroborated, and (2)
the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms of
imprisonment. 3
I. Corroboration Issue.
When the defendant challenges the trial court’s determination that
corroborating evidence existed to warrant submission of the case to the trier of
fact, our review is for correction of errors of law. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907.
A. Legal standard for corroboration of accomplice testimony.
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.21(3) provides that a person may not
be convicted “upon the testimony of an accomplice or a solicited person, unless
corroborated by other evidence which shall tend to connect the defendant with
the commission of the offense; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely
shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof.”
Corroborative evidence need not be strong nor confirm every material fact. State
v. Berney, 378 N.W.2d 915, 918 (Iowa 1985). And it need not confirm all the
elements of the crime charged. State v. Cuevas, 282 N.W.2d 74, 78 (Iowa
1979). Such evidence may be direct or circumstantial. State v. Bugely, 562
N.W.2d 173, 176 (Iowa 1997). Any corroborative evidence tending to connect
the defendant to the commission of the crime supports the credibility of the
accomplice and is sufficient. State v. Vesey, 241 N.W.2d 888, 890 (Iowa 1976).
The only requirement is that the accomplice’s testimony be supported in some
material fact tending to connect the defendant to the crime charged. State v.
Aldape, 307 N.W.2d 32, 41 (Iowa 1981). It must be inculpatory but need not be
entirely inconsistent with innocence. State v. Larson, 512 N.W.2d 803, 806 (Iowa
Ct. App. 1993).
The corroboration requirement serves two purposes: “First, it
independently tends to connect defendant to the crime. Second, it supports the 4
credibility of an accomplice whose motives are clearly suspect because of the
accomplice’s self-interest in focusing blame on the defendant.” State v. Brown,
397 N.W.2d 689, 694 (Iowa 1986). The existence of corroborative evidence is a
question of law for the court, but its sufficiency is a question of fact for the fact
finder. Bugely, 562 N.W.2d at 176. Each case must be governed by its own
circumstances, and evidence that merely raises a suspicion the accused is the
guilty party is not sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to
warrant a conviction. State v. Gillespie, 503 N.W.2d 612, 617 (Iowa Ct. App.
1993).
When evaluating sufficiency challenges, we do not resolve conflicts in the
evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, or weigh evidence. State v.
Nitcher, 720 N.W.2d 547, 559 (Iowa 2006). Rather, we view all the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State, even if contradicted, and indulge in every
legitimate inference that may be fairly and reasonably deduced from this
evidence. State v. Robinson, 288 N.W.2d 337, 340 (Iowa 1980). The fact-finder
decides which evidence to accept or reject. State v. Williams, 695 N.W.2d 23, 28
(Iowa 2005).
B. Discussion.
At trial Johnson did not dispute that the crimes had occurred but denied
his involvement. Evidence produced by the State at trial that Johnson was
involved in the burglaries and thefts was substantially based on the testimony of
an accomplice, Jimmy. Johnson claims that Jimmy’s testimony was not
corroborated as required by rule 2.21(3) and, therefore, the evidence was 5
insufficient to convict him, his convictions must be reversed, and the case must
be remanded for dismissal.
In its written findings, the trial court set out the evidence establishing the
burglaries and thefts occurred, as well as the evidence the court found
corroborated the accomplice’s testimony that Johnson participated in these
crimes. Jimmy testified that he and Johnson committed all three burglaries, and
Johnson does not challenge the trial court’s findings of fact as not being
supported by evidence.
Since Johnson does not challenge the crimes occurred, we find it only
necessary to look at the district court’s findings as to evidence of corroboration
connecting him to these crimes and determine if it meets the legal requirement to
establish defendant’s guilt.
C. Burglaries and investigation.
1. L & K Laundry. During the night of January 24, 2014, L & K Laundry in
Sioux City was burglarized. When the laundry opened for business in the
morning, the owner discovered the break-in and reported it to the Sioux City
police. In investigating, police observed damage to the back door and a
bar/brace inside the door indicating the door had been pried open. Additionally,
officers found that the phone line on the outside of the building and wires
connected to two alarms inside the building were cut. A safe inside the laundry
office area had been moved, pried open, and the contents stolen. An
identification technician processed the laundromat. No fingerprints were
discovered; however, a partial shoe print consistent with Nike Shox shoes was 6
obtained from on top of the safe. As of March 17, 2014, no arrests had been
made in regard to this burglary.
2. Jehovah’s Witness Church. In the early morning hours of March 17,
2014, sometime before the burglary of the Family Dollar store, there was a
break-in at the Jehovah’s Witness Church in Sioux City, Iowa. At approximately
4:30 a.m., Tom Callender, a volunteer minister at the church, received a phone
call at his home from Midwest Alarm System informing him the signal from the
church had been lost and Midwest Alarm had been unable to restore that signal.
Because the alarm company was unable to determine any specific cause for the
lost signal, Callender did not immediately contact the police.
At approximately 9:00 a.m., another church member discovered the
church break-in, and the police were called. Investigation disclosed that locked
cabinets and desk drawers were broken open and appeared to be ransacked.
An alarm was broken off of a wall. On the outside of the building, the hinge pins
in a side door had been removed and there were pry marks to the door. Security
lights near that side door and on a garage were broken. Phone lines that were
also used for the Midwest Alarm system had been cut. A binder and paperwork
were missing from one of the offices, the garage door opener was missing from a
storage room inside the church, and a lawn mower blade was missing from
inside the garage.
3. The Family Dollar Store. At 5:12 a.m. on March 17, 2014, Sioux City
police were notified the door to the Family Dollar store was open and noise was
coming from inside. Due to the significance of the evidence surrounding this
crime, the district court’s findings are set out here in detail: 7
Officer Noltze arrived first and parked on the east side of the Family Dollar Store where he observed the open door. . . . Officers Fleckenstein and Hansen arrived just after Officer Noltze. As Officers Fleckenstein and Hansen pulled in on the west side of the building, they both observed two individuals wearing dark clothing and appearing to be carrying something running out of the front door of the store on the south side of the building, then running west and then north around the building, and then going down into a ravine that ran approximately east-west to the rear or north of the store. . . . Officer Noltze crossed a bridge and parked on the north side of the ravine. From his position on the north side of the ravine, Officer Fleckenstein could hear noises down in the ravine under the bridge; however, he could not see any persons because it was still dark at that time of the day. He then called his K-9 Eik and gave a standard verbal K-9 warning to the persons under the bridge. Immediately after giving this warning, one of the persons began running in a northwesterly direction within the ravine; however, Officer Fleckenstein and K-9 Eik were unable to get down into the ravine and catch up to this person due to the darkness, the difficult terrain, and the brush or thickets growing in the bank of the ravine. Officer Fleckenstein and K-9 Eik then returned to the bridge, and he gave another K-9 warning to the other person who was still hiding in the ravine. Officer Fleckenstein then found an area for Eik to go down into the ravine, and K-9 Eik shortly thereafter apprehended that person. The person apprehended under the bridge was Jimmy . . . . After Jimmy . . . was apprehended and taken into custody, Officer Fleckenstein located under the bridge cash in an ATM box in the amount of $4,380, two plastic money bags of cash in the approximate amount of $1,000, and a duffel bag containing a hammer, pry bar, and a lawn mower blade which was later determined to be consistent with the lawn mower blade missing from the garage at the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church. Officers Noll and Harstad also responded to the call and assisted in the investigation of the Family Dollar Store. Within the brush leading down into the ravine from the store, officers found a black mask and white cotton glove that had been worn by Jimmy . . . . They also located wire cutters outside the Family Dollar Store which were believed to have fallen out of a hole in the duffel bag. . . . While Officers Harstad and Reed were investigating the store, the store manager, Cheryl Kollbaum, was called, and she walked around the inside and outside of the building with the officers. . . . They noted damage to the electrical system and cut phone lines in a back room area of the store and damage to a heat sensor on the ceiling . . . (Jimmy . . . testified that he thought the heat sensor was a camera). Directly beneath the heat sensor, they 8
observed a footstool with a shoe print. . . . [Kollbaum] also identified the cash bags and ATM box that were located underneath the bridge. After Officer Noltze cleared the inside of the store and Officers Harstad and Reed arrived at the store, Officer Noltze then used his K-9 in an effort to “track” the other person who had run away from under the bridge. Officer Noltze and his K-9 tracked that person in the ravine and through underground culverts. Officer Noltze and his K-9 lost the scent of the person on the street level above the culvert in the area of South Rustin Street. .... During this time, Officer Finken was dispatched to the Regency Trailer Park located northeast from the Family Dollar Store in response to a report of a suspicious van parked in front of an abandoned trailer. The van was registered in the name of Theresa Aguirre who had also just reported the van as being stolen. It was later discovered that Ms. Aguirre and Jimmy . . . were romantically involved and were the parents of the same children. Officer Finken searched the inside of the van and located insurance cards in the name of Jimmy . . . . Officer Finken also found a bag with paperwork and a garage door opener which were later identified as the paperwork and garage door opener that were missing from the Jehovah’s Witnesses Church. As noted above, Carmen Gonzalez-Castro also testified at trial. Ms. Gonzalez testified that in the early morning hours of March 17, Defendant called her asking for a ride because his vehicle had broken down. Ms. Gonzalez further testified that she eventually agreed and picked up Defendant at a location just north of the area where the culvert passes under South Rustin Street. Ms. Gonzalez testified that Defendant was alone and got into the backseat of her van. She further testified that Defendant was wearing dark clothing, was muddy, and sounded and appeared to be out of breath. According to Ms. Gonzalez, Defendant asked her to drop him off at an apartment building located behind his residence, which she did. According to Ms. Gonzalez, she noticed as Defendant got out of her vehicle that his back left pant leg was torn, and his leg appeared to be bleeding. Ms. Gonzalez further testified that the next morning, March 18, her children noticed clothing items in the rear storage area of the van, specifically a pair of muddy Nike Shox tennis shoes, a pair of white cotton gloves, and a black or gray mask. Ms. Gonzalez and Theresa Aguirre then put these items in a plastic bag and took them to Defendant’s residence and left them with Defendant’s spouse, Sherri Johnson. They then contacted the Sioux City Police. Officer Martinez subsequently retrieved and seized the bag of items which had been placed by Sherri Johnson in the backyard of the residence. 9
Prior to these events on March 18, Sherri Johnson had already become aware of the burglaries and she suspected involvement of Defendant. In particular, during his interview by Detective Sanders on the 17th, Jimmy . . . stated that Defendant was the second person involved and not Jimmy Merchant as he previously stated. Detective Sanders requested and obtained a warrant to search Defendant’s residence, and such search was executed while Sherri Johnson was present on March 17. No items were located at that time. Based on the information that had been obtained, Detective Sanders also attempted to contact the Defendant and eventually spoke to him by phone. Defendant told Detective Sanders words to the effect that they would not catch him. [Identification] Tech Roach processed evidence obtained at . . . the Family Dollar. No fingerprints were discovered; however, a partial shoe print was taken . . . from the footstool at the Family Dollar. [The] shoe print [was] consistent or otherwise similar in size and pattern to Defendant’s Nike Shox shoes.
D. Corroboration.
1. Family Dollar. The district court recognized the accomplice’s
testimony had to be corroborated to find defendant guilty. Upon our review, we
conclude the trial court did not commit legal error in finding corroborating
evidence and, as a result, finding Johnson guilty of the Family Dollar burglary.
The trial court found the accomplice Jimmy was a credible witness. Jimmy was
caught shortly after being seen running out of Family Dollar with another man.
Items from the church burglary were found in a vehicle registered to Theresa
Aguirre, Jimmy’s significant other, parked not far from the Family Dollar store.
More significant, when the police arrived at the Family Dollar, officers
observed two men running out of the store wearing dark clothing, and the officers
noted the respective sizes of the individuals as they ran into a ravine. The
descriptions fit both Jimmy and Johnson. Using a K-9 police dog, Jimmy was
captured, and the other person was tracked through the ravine until the K-9 lost 10
the scent near South Rustin Street. Within the brush leading down into the
ravine from the store, officers found a black mask and white cotton glove that had
been worn by Jimmy.
Sometime around 7:00 a.m. on March 17, Johnson called Carmen
Gonzalez-Castro asking for a ride because his vehicle had broken down. She
agreed and picked Johnson up at a location just north of the area where the
culvert passes under South Rustin Street. He was alone, and he got into the
backseat of her van. He was wearing dark clothing, was muddy, and sounded
and appeared to be out of breath. Johnson asked her to drop him off at an
apartment building located behind his residence, which she did. As he got out of
her vehicle, she noticed that his back left pant leg was torn and his leg appeared
to be bleeding.
The next morning Gonzalez-Castro found clothing items in the rear
storage area of her van, specifically a pair of muddy Nike Shox shoes, a pair of
white cotton gloves, and a black or gray mask. She and Aguirre then put these
items in a plastic bag and took them to Johnson’s residence and left them with
Johnson’s spouse. Officer Martinez later retrieved and seized the bag of items,
which Sherri Johnson had placed in the backyard of their residence.
The white gloves found in the ravine worn by Jimmy were consistent with
those found in the van and the type used at Johnson’s employment. The Nike
Shox shoes were consistent in size and sole configuration with the shoe print
taken from the stool inside the Family Dollar. The trial court acknowledged the
“partial print does not have the same unique characteristics such as a fingerprint
connecting Defendant and only Defendant to the crime; however, it is 11
circumstantial evidence pointing to his involvement and supporting the testimony
of Jimmy . . . .”
Johnson argues the failure to establish definitively that the shoe print was
made by his Nike Shox shoes defeats corroboration. We do not agree. This
might be true if the State was relying on this evidence alone to prove Johnson
guilty of the burglary. See State v. Mark, 286 N.W.2d 396, 409 (Iowa 1979) (“In
order to establish a proper foundational connection between defendant and the
crime scene shoe prints, it was necessary that the State establish that similarities
existed between the distinctive characteristics exhibited by defendant and the
characteristics exhibited by the maker of the crime scene shoe prints.”). Here,
the State is only relying on this as evidence of corroboration to satisfy the rule,
and it only needs to tend to connect Johnson to the crime. See Bugely, 562
N.W.2d at 176-77 (“The existence of a second, small set of footprints at these
burglaries confirms that a second person was involved. These prints, which
match those present at [the first] residence, show the same person who
committed the [first] burglary was present at the [second] burglar[y].”). In Bugely,
the defendant’s shoes were not found and were not available for comparison to
the shoe prints. The shoe evidence was still deemed sufficient corroboration of
the accomplice’s testimony to justify submission to the jury. The defendant’s
shoes found by Gonzalez-Castro, together with the other items and
circumstances of her giving defendant a ride at a location near where the police
K-9 lost the scent within the time frame of his fleeing the Family Dollar,
sufficiently connected defendant to the Family Dollar burglary as to corroborate
Jimmy’s testimony. 12
In addition to the foregoing, the State presented evidence that Johnson
did not return to his employment on or after March 17. Further, Detective
Sanders called Johnson on March 17 using Jimmy’s cellphone. Sanders
testified, “I told him that I needed to speak with him at the police department.
Basically, he said that he wasn’t going to come in. Then I told him that I would
issue warrants for his arrest, and his comments were basically, ‘Good luck trying
to find me.’” Johnson again argues this evidence does not establish his guilt.
This evidence alone would not be sufficient corroboration. But our supreme court
has recognized there may be a combination of circumstances, singularly
unpersuasive but in totality sufficient, to entitle the trier of fact to conclude that
the accomplice’s testimony has been corroborated in accordance with the
statutory requirement. See State v. Willman, 244 N.W.2d 314, 315 (Iowa 1976).
And there is a difference in the quantum of proof of identity necessary for
evidence being used as substantive proof of guilt as opposed to evidence being
used to corroborate an accomplice. State v. Gates, 67 N.W.2d 579, 583 (Iowa
1954). Rather, “inculpatory facts in testimony of an accomplice or accomplices
were corroborated by evidence showing the defendant’s association with the
accomplice or accomplices, proximity to the crime scene and additional
suspicious circumstances suggestive of the defendant’s participation in the
offense.” Vesey, 241 N.W.2d at 891. The evidence of corroboration as found by
the trial court was sufficient as to the Family Dollar store burglary to support the
finding of guilt. The district court is therefore to be affirmed as to Counts 1 and 5.
2. Jehovah’s Witness Church. The trial court initially noted that Jimmy
was involved in both the burglary at Family Dollar and the burglary at the 13
Jehovah’s Witness Church. The trial court also found the extent of damage and
other observations made at the church suggested that at least one other person
was involved in the church break-in with Jimmy. Based on these circumstances,
the trial court found the same corroborating evidence proving Johnson’s
involvement in the Family Dollar burglary indirectly corroborated the testimony of
Jimmy that Johnson was the other person involved in the burglary of the church.
We cannot agree when these findings are evaluated in light of the Vesey
case. Corroboration of testimony that is not inculpatory is not corroboration of a
material fact tending to connect the accused with the crime. Id. The extent of
damage may indicate that more than one person burglarized the church, but it
does not place Johnson there.
The trial court also found that the facts and circumstances of the Family
Dollar burglary were strikingly similar to the facts and circumstances of the
church burglary to be considered evidence identifying Johnson as one of the
perpetrators of the church burglary. We cannot agree. The trial court
acknowledged that similarity between two crimes must be so strikingly similar or
of a unique nature that involvement in the prior crime makes it more likely that
defendant was involved in the present crime. See State v. Butler, 415 N.W.2d
634, 636 (Iowa 1987) (“When prior crimes evidence is offered to prove identity,
‘the test of relevancy is whether the prior crime and the crime for which
defendant is being charged reveal circumstances that are ‘strikingly similar’ or of
a ‘unique nature,’ such that involvement in the prior crime makes it more likely
that defendant was involved in the present crime.’”). The circumstances of the
two burglaries are not so similar or unique so as to establish Johnson’s 14
participation in the Family Dollar proves he also participated in the church
burglary.
The trial court also found that Jimmy used Aguirre’s van to drive from the
church to the area of the Family Dollar and, therefore, it was reasonable to
conclude that Johnson was with Jimmy at the church since no means of
transportation explained how Johnson got to the Family Dollar. The trial court
stated:
To conclude otherwise would mean that Jimmy . . . either accomplished the church burglary by himself and then picked up Defendant in the middle of the night on his way to the Family Dollar; or, that Jimmy . . . and a third person committed the burglary at the church, then that third person left or was dropped off somewhere by Jimmy . . . before [he] then picked up Defendant to go to the Family Dollar. These scenarios are certainly possible; however, they are not likely or reasonable.
No corroborating evidence was found to indicate Johnson was in the van
or at the church. The trial court found the scenarios were only possible.
Evidence which merely raises a suspicion the accused is the guilty party is not
sufficiently corroborative of the testimony of an accomplice to warrant a
conviction. Gillespie, 503 N.W.2d at 617.
The sole connection between Johnson and the burglary of the church is
the temporal connection—the church burglary occurring within hours of the
Family Dollar burglary. Using that link, the court stated, “Based on these
circumstances, the same corroborating evidence proving Defendant’s
involvement in the Family Dollar burglary indirectly corroborates the testimony of
Jimmy . . . that Defendant was the other person involved in the burglary of the
church.” The accomplice’s testimony must be supported in some material fact 15
tending to connect the defendant to the crime charged. See Aldape, 307 N.W.2d
at 41. The temporal connection does not eliminate the need to connect Johnson
to the particular charge. Bugely, 562 N.W.2d at 176-77.
Since the State did not present evidence to corroborate Jimmy’s testimony
that Johnson was involved in the church burglary, the trial court erred as a matter
of law in holding there was corroboration. Johnson’s conviction as to Count 2
must be reversed and the case remanded with direction to dismiss this count.
3. L & K Laundry. In regard to Johnson’s involvement in the L & K
Laundry burglary, the trial court initially concluded the facts and circumstances of
the burglaries at the Jehovah’s Witness Church and Family Dollar were strikingly
similar to this burglary, which occurred within the same general time frame as the
other two burglaries. Additionally, the court relied on the fact that Jimmy was
involved in all three burglaries and its previous conclusion Johnson had
committed the church and Family Dollar burglaries with Jimmy.
As discussed above, the facts and circumstances of the burglaries are not
so strikingly similar or unique that such a connection can be made. The laundry
burglary was two months prior to the church and Family Dollar burglaries. As we
have already held above, the State did not present adequate corroborative
evidence to connect the defendant to the Jehovah’s Witness Church burglary.
The trial court found, even ignoring the evidence of the other burglaries,
that the damage to the laundry, including the moving and forced entry into the
safe, proved that Jimmy did not act alone. Again, evidence that someone must
have helped with the burglary is still not corroborative evidence connecting
Johnson to the crime. The trial court also noted that Johnson was familiar with 16
the laundry, its layout, and the owner’s practice of having cash available to cash
customers’ payroll checks. Additionally, Johnson was at the laundry the day
before the burglary. None of these findings place him at the laundry at the time
of the burglary. Moreover, no evidence of this burglary (cash, jewelry, or
cigarettes) was discovered during the search of Johnson’s residence.
Finally, the trial court found the partial shoe print identified on the top of
the safe was consistent with the shoe print found at Family Dollar and Johnson’s
Nike Shox shoes. But the trial court recognized the “partial print does not have
the same unique characteristics such as a fingerprint connecting Defendant and
only Defendant to the crime.” The trial court went on to state that this was
“circumstantial evidence pointing to [Johnson’s] involvement and supporting the
testimony of Jimmy.” The trial court thus concluded “that Jimmy’s testimony,
along with this other evidence corroborating such testimony and linking
Defendant to the crime, proves [Johnson’s] guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
We agree with the district court that the Nike Shox shoe print, by itself,
does not connect Johnson to the crime. But when considered with the other
evidence of the similar shoe print found at the Family Dollar store and the
corroborative evidence connecting Johnson to the Family Dollar burglary, this is
sufficient corroborative evidence to tie him to the L & K Laundry burglary. There
was no legal error as to Counts 3 and 4, and those verdicts and judgments are
affirmed.
II. Consecutive Sentences.
“We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion or defect in the
sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). 17
“An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds clearly
untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id.
A sentencing court is required to “state on the record its reason for
selecting the particular sentence.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d); State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Sentencing courts are encouraged to “give
more detailed reasons for a sentence specific to the individual defendant and
crimes.” State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016). Further, courts “should
also explicitly state the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence, although in
doing so the court may rely on the same reasons for imposing a sentence of
incarceration.” Id. at 275. Here, the trial court imposed consecutive sentences
for Count 1, the burglary of the Family Dollar store, and Count 3, the burglary of
the L & K Laundry. Johnson contends the trial judge failed to articulate on the
record the reasons for imposing these consecutive sentences.
Upon our review of the record, we find the trial court met the requirements
of rule 2.23(3)(d) and adequately stated not only the reasons for imposing prison
sentences, but also consecutive sentences. We find no error or reason to
remand the case for resentencing. Except for Count 2, the trial court’s sentences
should be affirmed.
IV. Conclusion.
The convictions and sentences in Counts 1, 3, 4 and 5 are affirmed. The
conviction is reversed as to Count 2, and the case is remanded to the district
court for dismissal of Count 2 for the reasons set forth in this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.