IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 13-1529
Filed June 25, 2014
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ELENITA CELINDRO,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Hancock County, Rustin T.
Davenport, Judge.
Elenita Celindro appeals her sentence and conviction for possession of a
controlled substance, second offense. AFFIRMED.
Sarah A. Reindl of Reindl Law Firm, Mason City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Trout, Assistant Attorney
General, and David Solheim, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
Elenita Celindro appeals her sentence and conviction for possession of a
controlled substance, second offense. She claims the district court abused its
discretion by ordering her to undergo a substance abuse evaluation. We find the
district court had authority to order a substance abuse evaluation and stated
sufficient reasons on the record for the sentence. Accordingly, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On September 24, 2013, Elenita Celindro entered a written plea of guilty
to the charge of possession of a controlled substance, second offense. The
sentencing hearing was held on the same day.
During the sentencing hearing, the district court largely adopted the
sentence suggested in the plea agreement,1 with one important addition.
According to the terms of the agreement, Celindro was to be sentenced to serve
fourteen days in jail and pay a fine of $625, which was to be suspended. The
district court also ordered that Celindro undergo a substance abuse evaluation,
pay for it, comply with its terms, and provide proof of completion to the clerk of
court. The substance abuse evaluation was not a part of the plea agreement.
Celindro claims the district court did not provide sufficient reasons for
ordering the substance abuse evaluation. She also contends the evaluation
should be stricken from her sentence because she was not placed on probation.
1
The defendant’s signed written plea acknowledges the court is not bound by the terms
of the plea agreement, and at sentencing, the court can impose any sentence
appropriate, up to the maximum allowed by law.
3
II. Standard of Review
We review Celindro’s challenge to her sentence for correction of errors at
law. State v. Keutla, 798 N.W.2d 731, 732 (Iowa 2011).
III. Discussion
We are presented with two questions on appeal. First, can the district
court order a substance abuse evaluation without placing the defendant on
probation. Second, did the district court give sufficient reasons on the record for
the sentence imposed. We answer both questions in the affirmative.
Iowa Code section 901.4A (2013) allows the district court to order a
defendant to undergo a substance abuse evaluation upon any plea of guilty, so
long as the district court believes the individual regularly abuses illegal
substances and may be in need of treatment. Celindro is correct that section
124.401(5) allows for participation in a drug treatment or education program
when a portion of the sentence is suspended and probation is imposed; however,
the evaluation provided for in section 901.4A is allowable “in addition to any other
sentence or order of the court.” The substance abuse requirement may be
imposed under either section, only one of which requires an order of probation.
The district court had the statutory authority to impose the sentence in this case.
A court must state, on the record, its reasons for employing a particular
sentence. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). The statement may be terse and
succinct, so long as we remain able to review the trial court’s use of its discretion.
State v. Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 838 (Iowa 2010). Terse and succinct would
4
be accurate words to describe the district court’s explanation in this case. During
the hearing, the court stated:
The law of Iowa requires the court impose a sentence that
will best provide for your rehabilitation, protect the community, and
deter others from committing this crime. The fact that this is a
second offense and given the record cited by the State, the court
finds that the recommendation of the State is appropriate in this
matter.
The district court specifically relied upon Celindro’s history of substance abuse
when imposing the sentence. This is one finding required by section 901.4A
when ordering a substance abuse evaluation. Though the district court’s
statement of reasons was concise, we find it sufficient for the limited question of
whether reasons were given to justify the imposition of the substance abuse
evaluation.2
AFFIRMED.
2
Iowa Code section 811.2(1)(b) (Supp. 2013) requires a substance abuse evaluation in
cases such as this one. Whether sufficient reasons were given or not, the district court
would in all cases be required to order a substance abuse evaluation. We also find
Celindro’s written guilty plea acknowledges she will be required to follow through with
any treatment recommended by a substance abuse evaluation.