State of Iowa v. Donald James Hill, 2016 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 50

Defendant Donald Hill, a paroled sex-offender, failed to timely report a change of address and committed other parole violations; he pled guilty to failing to comply with sex-offender registry requirements.
At sentencing the district court imposed a two-year prison term to run consecutive to a separate parole-revocation sentence.
The court orally stated: “The reason for the sentence is protection of the community, seriousness of the crime, and the nature and circumstances of the offense,” but did not reference Iowa Code § 908.10A or explicitly tie those reasons to the decision to run the sentence consecutively.
Hill appealed, arguing the district court failed to state adequate reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence.
The court of appeals upheld the sentence, reasoning the statutory presumption of consecutiveness in § 908.10A obviated the need to state reasons; a dissent disagreed.
The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review and held Rule 2.23(3)(d) requires the sentencing court to state reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence under § 908.10A; the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the district court’s reasons were insufficient.

Issue	Hill's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the statutory presumption of consecutiveness in Iowa Code § 908.10A relieves the sentencing court of the obligation to state reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence	Section 908.10A does not eliminate the court’s duty under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) to state reasons for consecutive sentences	The presumption in § 908.10A is a sufficient legal basis; no separate statement of reasons is required	Rule 2.23(3)(d) applies despite § 908.10A; court must state reasons for consecutive sentences
Whether the district court’s stated reasons were adequate to permit appellate review of its decision to run the sentence consecutively	The generic reasons given were sufficient for sentence length but did not explain why the sentence was consecutive; thus inadequate	The court’s stated reasons (community protection; seriousness; nature and circumstances) were adequate and reflected an exercise of discretion	The reasons were insufficient: the court did not expressly apply them to the decision to impose consecutiveness or demonstrate awareness of its discretion; remand for resentencing required

State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817 (Iowa 2010) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2014) (untenable grounds for discretion)
State v. Millsap, 704 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 2005) (when sentence not mandatory, court must exercise discretion)
State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 1996) (discretion and sentencing requirements)
State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679 (Iowa 2000) (Rule 2.23(3)(d) applies to consecutive sentence decisions)
State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915 (Iowa 2014) (purposes of stating reasons; checklist approach acceptable)
State v. Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2010) (prior precedent allowing inference that reasons for sentence applied to consecutiveness)
State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337 (Iowa 1989) (background on overall sentencing plan and appellate review)
State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 2015) (importance of articulated reasons for sentencing)