Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-902 / 11-0665 Filed December 7, 2011

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTWAN SHERRELL HANES, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mary E. Howes, Judge.

Antwan Hanes appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea. AFFIRMED.

John O. Moeller, Davenport, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Kelly Cunningham, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Doyle, JJ.

2 DOYLE, J. Antwan Hanes appeals his sentence of two concurrent five-year terms of incarceration following his guilty plea to one count of violating the Drug Stamp Act in violation of Iowa Code section 453B.12 (2009) and one count of possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver in violation of section 124.401(1)(d). He contends the district court abused its discretion by imposing a prison term. We affirm. Our review of sentencing decisions is for correction of errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). A

sentence will not be upset on appeal unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of district court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. Where, as here, a defendant does not assert that the imposed sentence is outside the statutory limits, the sentence will be set aside only for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion is found only when the sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225 (internal citations omitted). "When a sentence is not mandatory, the district court must exercise its discretion in determining what sentence to impose." Id. Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires a sentencing court to demonstrate its exercise of discretion by stating "on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence." Failure to state on the record the reasons for the sentence imposed requires the sentence be vacated and the case remanded for amplification of the record and re-sentencing. State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 589 (Iowa 1980); State v. Freeman, 404 N.W.2d 188,

3 191 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). "The sentencing court, however, is generally not

required to give its reasons for rejecting particular sentencing options. " Thomas, 547 N.W.2d at 225. In considering sentencing options, the court is to determine, in its discretion, which of the authorized sentences will provide both the maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant and for the protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others. Iowa Code

Download STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ANTWAN SHERRELL HANES, Defendant-Appellan

Iowa Law