State of Iowa v. Steven F. Scarlett, 16-1033

Defendant Steven Scarlett was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily injury after physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend M.H. (hair pulling, slaps, forced to crawl, kick to ribs).
Scarlett moved for a new trial; the district court denied the motion and sentenced him to up to one year (all but 45 days suspended), one year probation, batterer’s education, and a five-year no-contact order with M.H.; sentence was consecutive to an OWI conviction.
On direct appeal the court of appeals affirmed most rulings but found the district court used an improper standard on the new-trial ruling and remanded for the court to apply the correct standard; if the motion remained denied, the court directed resentencing.
On remand the district court again denied the new-trial motion, resentenced Scarlett largely the same, and entered a new five-year no-contact order dated from the resentencing.
Scarlett appealed the remand proceedings, arguing the court should have made specific findings on the new-trial denial, the conviction was against the weight of the evidence (no bodily injury), the five-year no-contact term should run from the original sentencing date, and resentencing failed to properly account for his postconviction rehabilitation.
The court affirmed the conviction and sentence, reversed the new no-contact order (holding the original judgment’s no-contact period controls), and remanded to reimpose the no-contact order expiring October 7, 2019.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by summarily denying motion for new trial without detailed findings	State: denial appropriate; any proper basis supports ruling	Scarlett: court must state specific findings so appellate review is possible	Denial affirmed; Maxwell permits affirming where any proper basis appears; better practice to state reasons but not required
Whether conviction was against the weight of the evidence (bodily injury element)	State: M.H.’s testimony showed pain/redness/scrapes sufficient for bodily injury	Scarlett: only M.H.’s testimony showed injury; insufficient evidence	Denial of new-trial motion upheld; testimony of pain meets "bodily injury" definition
Whether no-contact order should run from resentencing or original judgment date	State: new order dated at resentencing effective	Scarlett: statutory five-year no-contact runs from date judgment entered (original sentencing)	Reversed new no-contact order; original judgment remained; order should expire Oct. 7, 2019
Whether resentencing abused discretion by not sufficiently crediting postconviction rehabilitation	State: court considered factors and prior statements	Scarlett: court should have given greater weight to good conduct since original sentence	No abuse of discretion; court considered rehabilitation but found assault severity and public protection justified sentence

State v. Maxwell, 743 N.W.2d 185 (Iowa 2008) (trial court should state reasons for ruling on motion for new trial; appellate affirmance acceptable when any proper basis appears)
State v. Beck, 854 N.W.2d 56 (Iowa 2014) (appellate courts must follow controlling supreme court precedent)
State v. Ellis, 578 N.W.2d 655 (Iowa 1998) (trial courts have wide discretion on motions for new trial)
State v. Reeves, 670 N.W.2d 199 (Iowa 2003) (appellate review of weight-of-evidence claims limited to trial court’s exercise of discretion)
State v. Gordon, 560 N.W.2d 4 (Iowa 1997) (definition of "bodily injury" includes physical pain)
State v. Taylor, 689 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2004) (testimony of pain can suffice to establish bodily injury)
State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2015) (resentencing may consider changed circumstances including postconviction rehabilitation)
State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708 (Iowa 1995) (sentencing decisions receive strong presumption of correctness)
State v. Cooley, 691 N.W.2d 737 (Iowa Ct. App. 2004) (discussing when judgment must be set aside on remand versus limited resentencing)