IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0561
Filed March 23, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
DAWAYNE MCGOWAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Douglas C.
McDonald, Judge.
A criminal defendant appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to driving
while barred. SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR
RESENTENCING.
Leah Patton of Puryear Law P.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kevin R. Cmelik and Linda J.
Hines, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ.
2
POTTERFIELD, Judge.
Dawayne McGowan appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to driving
while barred. He argues the district court failed to comply with Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) because it listed McGowan’s written plea
agreement—which is not contained in the record—as a factor considered in
determining his sentence. We find the district court did not adequately comply
with the rule and, therefore, vacate McGowan’s sentence and remand for
resentencing.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On March 24, 2014, the State filed a trial information charging McGowan
with one count of driving while barred as a habitual offender, in violation of Iowa
Code sections 321.555(1) and 321.561 (2013). On February 20, 2015,
McGowan filed a written guilty plea to the same. As a part of the written plea,
McGowan initialed a paragraph which read: “A plea agreement in my case exists
as evidenced by a memorandum of plea agreement which I have signed. I
understand that any plea agreement is not binding on the court.” He also waived
his rights to an in-court plea colloquy and to personally address the court at the
time of sentencing.
The district court accepted McGowan’s guilty plea and on March 20, 2015,
sentenced him to a 365-day term of imprisonment in county jail. All but ninety
days of the sentence was suspended, and McGowan was given credit for time
served. He was also placed on unsupervised probation for one year and
assessed a $1500 fine, plus applicable costs, surcharges, and fees. In lieu of
payment, McGowan was ordered to complete 296 hours of unpaid community
3
service. The district court explained its basis for the sentence imposed in its
written judgment and sentence:
The following sentence is based on all of the available sentencing
considerations set out in Iowa Code section 907.5. The court finds
the following factors the most significant to determine this particular
sentence: defendant’s age, family circumstances, education, prior
criminal record, [the] facts and circumstances of this offense, and
the belief that the sentence will provide benefit to the defendant and
the community. The plea agreement was also considered.
The plea agreement referenced both in McGowan’s written guilty plea and in the
district court’s written judgment and sentence was never made a part of the
record.
McGowan now appeals.
II. Standard of Review
When reviewing a district court’s sentencing decisions, we will not reverse
absent either an abuse of discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure such
as the consideration of inappropriate matters. See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
III. Analysis
Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) provides, in part, that when a
district court sentences a defendant, “[t]he court shall state on the record its
reason for selecting the particular sentence.” The district court may satisfy this
requirement either by stating its reasons orally on the record or by including them
in its written sentencing order. State v. Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 919 (Iowa
2014). The most important purpose of the requirement is to afford appellate
courts the opportunity to review the sentencing court’s discretion. Id.
4
McGowan argues the district court violated rule 2.23(3)(d) when it based
his sentence in part upon a written plea agreement not contained in the record.1
In other words, he argues the district court did not comply with the mandate that
it state on the record—here, in its written sentencing order—its reason for
selecting the particular sentence when it listed as one factor under consideration
a written document not made a part of the record and, therefore, unavailable for
appellate review. We agree.
Our supreme court recently held, in a similar case, that a district court did
not adequately state the reasons for its sentence on the record as required by
rule 2.23(3)(d) when it made reference to a plea agreement whose terms were
not contained in the record. State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 410 (Iowa 2015).
In Thacker, as here, a criminal defendant was sentenced after submitting a guilty
plea, and the plea agreement was never made a part of the record. Id. at 404.
As a result, our supreme court explained, a reviewing court looking at the record
was left to guess “whether the district court exercised its discretion, simply
accepted the parties’ agreement, or did a little of both.” Id. at 410.
1
As recently as two years ago, a criminal defendant wishing to appeal a sentence on the
grounds the district court violated rule 2.23(3)(d) was required to provide a record of his
sentencing hearing on appeal or else waive error for the claim. See, e.g., State v.
Brooks, No. 13-1675, 2014 WL 6721201, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2014) (citing
State v. Mudra, 532 N.W.2d 765, 767 (Iowa 1995)). However, after State v. Thompson
was decided in December 2014, a defendant no longer needs to do so. 856 N.W.2d at
921 (overruling Mudra and other cases “holding the defendant waives his or her right to
appeal a particular sentence when the defendant waives reporting of the sentencing and
the court fails to put reasons for the sentence in the written sentencing order”). Now, in
the absence of any record of a sentencing hearing we look to the sufficiency of the
district court’s written sentencing order; if the district court failed to adequately state its
reasons for the sentence in the written sentencing order, it has abused its discretion, and
we must vacate the sentence and remand the case for resentencing. Id.
5
This is not to say that McGowan’s case is indistinguishable from the one
considered in Thacker. In Thacker, the district court used a sentencing form
which included only the boilerplate language that its chosen sentence was
“based on all of the available sentencing considerations set out in Iowa Code
section 907.5,” along with a checked box indicating that, of the factors
considered, the plea agreement was “the most significant in determining [the]
particular sentence.” Id. at 404. Here, the district court listed a number of
specific factors it considered to be most significant to its sentencing decision, and
the plea agreement was not listed among those most significant factors but
instead as something that “was also considered.”
But even with these distinctions, we still find Thacker to be controlling
because the sentencing defect described in Thacker exists here as well, even if
to a differing degree. We, the reviewing court, when looking at the record,
cannot determine precisely what was considered by the district court or even if
the district court followed the plea agreement in whole or in part or otherwise
exercised its discretion. We are therefore compelled to vacate McGowan’s
sentence and remand for resentencing, with the same instructions given to the
district court in Thacker:
On remand, if the district court determines it merely gave effect to
the parties’ agreement and exercised no discretion in sentencing
other than to accept the plea agreement as advanced by the
parties, it should make the particulars of the plea agreement with
respect to the sentence a part of the record. . . . If, on the other
hand, the parties did not come to an agreement with respect to the
particulars of the sentence or the district court departed from any
agreement the parties may have had, then the district court
exercised discretion and, as a result, must make a statement on the
record as to why it exercised its discretion in the way it did. On
remand, there is no requirement the district court arrive at a
6
different sentence, but only that it satisfy the requirements of Iowa
Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d).
Id. at 410–11 (internal citation omitted).
SENTENCE VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.