State of Iowa v. Terry Wayne McDole

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: April 26, 2023
• Docket: 22-1397
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1397 Filed April 26, 2023

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TERRY WAYNE MCDOLE, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hardin County, Hans Becker, District

Associate Judge.

Terry McDole appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to

domestic abuse assault, second offense. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Thomas E. Bakke, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Greer and Chicchelly, JJ 2

VAITHESWARAN, Presiding Judge.

Terry McDole pled guilty to domestic abuse assault, second offense. The

district court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to a prison term not

exceeding two years. The court ordered the sentence to run consecutive to

sentences imposed in another case. The court’s written order stated

“[c]onsecutive sentences are imposed because the crimes for which the

consecutive sentences are imposed[] involve separate and distinct crimes

deserving of separate punishment in the form of consecutive sentences.” The

order further stated the “overall sentence” provided for McDole’s “rehabilitation and

the protection of the community.” The court cited its consideration of “the

sentencing recommendations of the parties as well as [McDole’s] age and the

facts, [his] criminal history, the need to deter [him] and others similarly situated

from committing offenses of this nature, and the circumstances surrounding the

particular offense.”

McDole appeals his sentence. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 109

(Iowa 2020) (holding good cause exists to challenge a sentence following a guilty

plea). He argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive

sentences. In his view, the court “did not mention” his “substance-abuse problem,”

which he characterizes as a “mitigating circumstance” that warranted treatment.

While courts are obligated to consider mitigating circumstances in imposing

sentence, “they are not ‘required to specifically acknowledge each such claim of

mitigation urged by a defendant.’” State v. Skipper, No. 22-0944, 2023 WL

2674089, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2023) (quoting State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d

9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)); see also State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 679 (Iowa 3

1998). The district court’s written reasons for imposition of consecutive sentences

are virtually identical to reasons we have upheld. See State v. Ganaway,

No. 17-0975, 2018 WL 2246847, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. May 16, 2018) (finding no

abuse of discretion where the sentencing order stated the sentences were

consecutive based on “the separate and serious nature of the offenses”). At the

sentencing hearing, the court also pointed out that the offense, which was the

same as one of the offenses McDole was found to have committed in the other

case, “occurred . . . eight days after his prior convictions.”

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing

consecutive sentences.

AFFIRMED.