State of Iowa v. Shirley Phillips, 16-1874

Shirley Phillips pleaded guilty to two counts of operating while intoxicated in violation of Iowa Code §321J.2; the second offense occurred after she absconded following the first charge.
The district court sentenced Phillips to one year incarceration on each count, to be served consecutively.
Sentences were within statutory limits; sentencing proceedings were not reported, so the record lacks verbatim sentencing remarks.
The sentencing order stated the court considered: nature and circumstances of the crime, public protection, Phillips’s criminal and substance-abuse history, propensity for further criminal acts, and statutory requirements.
The district court explained it imposed consecutive sentences because Phillips had multiple prior OWIs (third and fourth lifetime) and had absconded after being charged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused discretion in sentencing	State argued sentences were proper and within statutory limits and supported by record factors	Phillips argued the court failed to consider mitigation: nonviolent nature and her acceptance of responsibility via guilty plea	Court held no abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed
Whether sentencing court failed to consider mitigating factors	State pointed to sentencing order listing relevant considerations	Phillips claimed the court did not acknowledge specific mitigating circumstances (nonviolence, guilty plea)	Court held a sentencing court need not explicitly acknowledge every mitigation claim and may still have considered them
Whether consecutive sentences were justified	State relied on defendant’s criminal history and absconding conduct as permissible reasons	Phillips contended consecutive sentences were excessive given mitigation	Court held consecutive sentences justified by criminal history and absconding; permissible reasons
Whether strong presumption of regularity applies	State relied on presumption when within statutory limits	Phillips attempted to rebut presumption by alleging failure to consider mitigation	Court applied presumption and found Phillips failed to overcome it

State v. Floyd, 466 N.W.2d 919 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (sentences within statutory limits are presumptively regular)
State v. Privitt, 571 N.W.2d 484 (Iowa 1997) (definition of abuse of discretion for sentencing)
State v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717 (Iowa 1994) (matters sentencing court should weigh)
State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (court not required to explicitly acknowledge each mitigation claim)
State v. Robbins, 257 N.W.2d 63 (Iowa 1977) (related to consideration of mitigating circumstances)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (district court must state reasons for consecutive sentences)