State of Iowa v. Wendy Lynn Horak, 16-1697

Wendy Horak was convicted of forgery and possession/gathering where controlled substances are used (methamphetamine) and sentenced to up to five years for those new convictions.
At the same hearing the district court revoked probation in two earlier cases and imposed original sentences: five years (forgery) and ten years (money laundering).
The court ran the two reinstated sentences concurrent with each other but consecutive to the new five-year term, producing a total exposure of up to fifteen years.
Horak challenged the consecutive sentencing, arguing the court relied on an improper rationale—saying doing otherwise would “send the wrong message”—and failed to adequately state reasons on the record.
The district court explained its decision by citing Horak’s lengthy criminal history, that the new offenses were committed while on probation, the seriousness of the offenses, deterrence (general and specific), and rehabilitation prospects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court improperly relied on an illegitimate factor or failed to adequately state reasons when imposing consecutive sentences	State: court’s “send the wrong message” comment reflected legitimate deterrence goals and other proper sentencing factors; the record shows adequate reasons	Horak: the “send the wrong message” rationale is an improper, non-sentencing consideration and the court’s explanation was legally inadequate	Court affirmed: the remark was a permissible reference to deterrence; court gave adequate, individualized reasons (criminal history, probation violation, seriousness, deterrence, rehab)

State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2002) (standard of appellate review for sentencing and reversal only for abuse of discretion)
State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016) (abuse of discretion defined; requirement for individualized sentencing explanation)
State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57 (Iowa 1999) (explaining certain non-sentencing considerations are improper when imposing consecutive sentences)
State v. Oliver, 812 N.W.2d 636 (Iowa 2012) (recognizing deterrence as a legitimate penological justification)
State v. Leckington, 713 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 2006) (identifying proper sentencing factors and need for reasons on the record)