State of Iowa v. Mark Aaron Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915

Background

Mark Thompson pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance under a plea agreement in which the State would recommend 60 days jail, $625 fine, and no probation; the court accepted the plea and set sentencing later.
Thompson waived reporting of the sentencing hearing; the written sentencing order (hand-filled form) shows the court imposed a different sentence: two years with all but 15 days suspended and two years’ probation.
The sentencing-order form did not indicate the court’s reasons for the sentence (the checkbox/reason section was left blank).
Thompson appealed, arguing the court failed to state reasons for the sentence as required by Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d) and improperly deviated from the plea agreement.
The court of appeals affirmed, relying on State v. Mudra and State v. Alloway and concluding Thompson waived error by waiving reporting; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
The Supreme Court overruled Mudra and Alloway, held a sentencing judge must state reasons either on the record or in the written order even when the defendant waives reporting, vacated Thompson’s sentence, and remanded for resentencing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether waiver of reporting bars appellate review when judge fails to state sentencing reasons in writing	State: waiver of reporting precludes review unless defendant reconstructs record	Thompson: waiver of reporting does not waive right to reasons; court must give reasons in written order	Overruled Mudra/Alloway; waiver of reporting does not waive error; court must state reasons on record or in written order; sentence vacated and remanded
Whether court erred by imposing a greater sentence than agreed in plea agreement	State: plea agreement did not require court concurrence; court free to accept or reject recommendation	Thompson: court deviated from plea recommendation and should have allowed withdrawal or followed agreement	Court: plea was not conditioned on court concurrence; no error in deviating; defendant not entitled to withdraw plea
Whether defendant waived right to challenge plea by not filing motion in arrest of judgment	State: failure to move in arrest waives challenge	Thompson: no basis to file before sentencing because court’s deviation only became known at sentencing	Court: motion in arrest rule does not bar appeal here because deficiency arose at sentencing; defendant may raise issue on appeal
Remedy when reasons absent and reporting waived	State: follow Mudra/Alloway and affirm absent reconstructed record	Thompson: vacate and remand for resentencing	Court: absent reasons in written order (when reporting waived), court abused discretion; vacate sentence and remand for resentencing

Key Cases Cited

State v. Mudra, 532 N.W.2d 765 (Iowa 1995) (held defendant who waived reporting waived appellate review when record lacked sentencing reasons; overruled)
State v. Alloway, 707 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 2006) (reaffirmed Mudra’s waiver rule; overruled)
State v. Johnson, 784 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2010) (cited as later decision addressing sentencing-rule issues)
State v. Lumadue, 622 N.W.2d 302 (Iowa 2001) (explains rule requiring courts state reasons for sentence and purpose of that requirement)
State v. Luedtke, 279 N.W.2d 7 (Iowa 1979) (early decision recognizing mandatory nature of stating sentencing reasons; remand required)
State v. Pierce, 287 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980) (remanded for resentencing where reasons not stated)
State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570 (Iowa 1980) (similar rule enforcement requiring reasons)
State v. Matlock, 304 N.W.2d 226 (Iowa 1981) (court should state reasons even when no sentencing discretion exists)
State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (remanded when sentencing order contained only vague generalized considerations)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (recognizes failure to enter a sentencing statement can constitute abuse of discretion)