IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1472
Filed June 10, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
WILLIAM FRANK FETNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Annette L.
Boehlje, District Associate Judge.
William Fetner appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to driving
while barred as a habitual offender and possession of marijuana, third or
subsequent offense. AFFIRMED.
Travis M. Armbrust of Brown, Kinsey, Funkhouse & Lander, P.L.C., Mason
City, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
General, and Carlyle Dalen, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Potterfield and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, J.
William Fetner appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to driving
while barred as a habitual offender and possession of marijuana, third or
subsequent offense. Fetner claims the district court abused its discretion by
exceeding the sentencing recommendations of the parties. We affirm on appeal
by memorandum opinion pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(a) and (d).
On May 1, 2014, Fetner was charged with driving while barred as a
habitual offender, pursuant to Iowa Code sections 321.560 and 321.561 (2013),
and for possession of marijuana, third or subsequent offense, pursuant to section
124.401(5). Fetner entered a guilty plea. At the sentencing hearing in
September, the parties and the presentence investigation report recommended a
suspended sentence on the condition Fetner would reside at a residential
treatment facility. The district court sentenced Fetner to an indeterminate prison
term not to exceed two years in prison on count I, and an indeterminate term not
to exceed five years in prison on count II to run consecutive to count I.1 Fetner
appeals from this sentence.
Our review of a sentence imposed in a criminal case is for correction of
errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.907; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724
(Iowa 2002). We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an
abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d at 724.
1
Fetner acknowledged in his written plea of guilty that the sentencing recommendations
of the parties were not binding on the court.
3
“The decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence within
the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only
be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate
matters.” Id. An abuse of discretion will not be found unless we are able to
discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons that were
clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa
1995). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3) requires a trial court to state on
the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence. “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.” State v. Jacobs, 607
N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000) (citations omitted); State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d
337, 343 (Iowa 1989) (“A statement may be sufficient, even if terse and succinct,
so long as the brevity of the court’s statement does not prevent review of the
exercise of the trial court’s sentencing discretion.”).
Upon our review of the sentencing proceeding, we find the sentencing
court considered multiple factors in determining Fetner should be placed in
prison, rather than in a residential treatment facility. The district court did not
abuse its discretion, and we affirm Fetner’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.