In ordering the sentence to be served consecutively to Chandler’s Indiana
sentence, the district court stated:
I am going to require that this sentence be served
consecutively to any other existing sentence, and I will tell you my
reasons for that. First of all, the nature and the circumstances of
this offense were violent. There were firearms involved, more than
one. The workers at the Burger King, one of them was hurt. They
weren’t shot, but they were hit with guns. I considered that. You
were not a juvenile when this offense was committed; you were an
adult. And finally, there is the 2015 conviction in Indiana, and that
is also for a serious, violent offense. It’s for conspiracy to commit
robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.
Based on those circumstances, consecutive terms of
imprisonment, even though this case carries a substantial
mandatory minimum, consecutive sentences are still appropriate for
those reasons.
Your past record, it’s true, is not the worst I’ve ever seen. It
doesn’t approach being the worst I’ve ever seen. You do have
positive factors in your favor. You have a child who, unfortunately
because of your actions, is being supported by the child’s mother
and cared for exclusively by the child’s mother.
I have no doubt that you have the intelligence and the skills
to earn money legitimately, and I think you are capable of being a
productive member of the community. But you have committed
very serious crimes that carry substantial penalties, and they carry
those penalties for a reason, because of the harm that does and
can result from these offenses.
I do hope that once you are eligible for parole and work
release, you examine yourself and you’ve matured enough to be
the person that you’re capable of being. I do hope that for you.
The court is required to give reasons on the record for imposing
consecutive sentences. State v. Barnes, 791 N.W.2d 817, 827 (Iowa 2010).
(“Although the reasons need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must
be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court’s discretionary action.”
(citation omitted)). We will find a sentencing court abused its discretion only
“when a court acts on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly
unreasonable.” Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d at 553 (citation omitted). The court’s