State of Iowa v. Scott Anthony Franzen, 17-0084

Defendant Scott Franzen (38) pleaded guilty to two counts of third-degree sexual abuse for sex with a 14-year-old that resulted in pregnancy and birth.
Count I (709.4(1)(a)) was a forcible felony; count II (709.4(1)(b)(3)(d)) was statutory-rape type sexual abuse and not a forcible felony.
At sentencing the State asked for prison on count II and consecutive terms; the PSI recommended concurrent sentences due to low risk of reoffense.
The district court imposed indeterminate 10-year terms on each count, to run consecutively (total not to exceed 20 years), suspended fines pending good behavior, and imposed lifetime parole under 903B.1.
Franzen appealed, arguing the court misunderstood sentencing options for count II, failed to give reasons for incarcerating on count II, and effectively imposed an unauthorized "split" sentence by suspending fines conditioned on post-release good behavior.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court misperceived sentencing options for non-forcible count II	State: court and parties understood count II did not require prison but requested prison on it	Franzen: court thought count II required incarceration because it is sexual abuse	Court: No error; record shows parties and court understood count II was not a forcible-felony and incarceration was discretionary
Whether court gave reasons for incarcerating on count II / for consecutive terms	State: consecutive sentence supported by repeated conduct and broad victim impact	Franzen: court provided reasons for consecutiveness but not for incarcerating on count II	Court: Reasons for consecutive terms adequately explain incarceration on count II under Hill permissibly using same rationale
Whether suspending fines conditioned on post-release good behavior created an unlawful split sentence	State: suspension of fines does not grant probation or split confinement	Franzen: conditioning suspension on good behavior equates to split sentence prohibited by law	Court: No split sentence; court did not grant probation and statutory authority permits suspending fines after confinement

State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720 (discussing standard of review for sentence within statutory limits)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (requiring explicit reasons when imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Putman, 848 N.W.2d 1 (definition of untenable sentencing grounds)
State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 (discussion of statutory-rape category within sexual-abuse statutes)
State v. Tensley, 334 N.W.2d 764 (probation and confinement are mutually exclusive absent statutory authorization)
State v. Harris, 251 N.W.2d 483 (same principle regarding probation versus confinement)