IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1627
Filed June 24, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
OLDEN BUTLER JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence, alleging the district court failed to
consider minimum essential factors. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney
General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Kelly G. Cunningham,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
This appeal raises a challenge to the district court’s reasons for imposing
a particular sentence.
I. Background Proceedings
Olden Butler Jr. pled guilty to domestic abuse assault-second offense, in
violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(b) (2013). The department of
correctional services prepared an informal report detailing Butler’s lengthy
criminal history, including prior convictions for domestic abuse assault and two
violations of no-contact orders.
The district court sentenced Butler to a prison term not exceeding two
years and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively with the sentence for
which he was currently on parole, assuming his parole was revoked. The court
stated its reasons for the sentence as follows:
The reasons for the court’s sentence, Mr. Butler, are your four[1]
prior convictions of domestic abuse assault, including prior
violations of a no-contact order. The court has also taken into
consideration your rather extensive criminal record, but of particular
import to the court is the fact that you have been convicted on four
prior occasions of domestic abuse assault. The reason the court
has ordered consecutive sentences to your parole matter is the fact
that you were on parole when this offense was committed, again,
your prior history of domestic, and the court’s need to hopefully
provide a specific deterrent to you to not commit this kind of crime
in the future. That’s the reason for the consecutive sentencing.
On appeal, Butler contends the district court relied solely on his criminal
history in sentencing him, to the exclusion of other pertinent factors. See State v.
Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 1982) (“[T]he nature of the offense; the
1
While the district court counted four prior convictions, our review of the informal report
reveals five prior convictions for domestic abuse assault.
3
attendant circumstances; and the defendant’s age, character, propensities and
chances of reform are ‘minimal essential factors’ to be considered when
exercising sentencing discretion.” (quoting State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393,
396 (Iowa 1979))). Our review is for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker,
862 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 2015).
Although the district court emphasized Butler’s criminal history, the court
also expressed concern about Butler’s prospects for reform, noting the deterrent
value of imposing consecutive sentences. See State v. Uthe, 542 N.W.2d 810,
816 (Iowa 1996) (requiring at least a “terse explanation of why” consecutive
sentences were imposed). The court’s reasons were “sufficient to enable us to
determine if an abuse of discretion occurred.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11
(Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Discerning no abuse, we affirm Butler’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.