IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-1002
Filed July 27, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ANTHONY RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Allamakee County, Joel A.
Dalrymple, Judge.
A defendant appeals the district court’s finding that his harassment
conviction was sexually motivated and asserts that the district court failed to give
sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences. SENTENCE AFFIRMED
IN PART AND VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Shellie L. Knipfer, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven and Alexandra
Link (until withdrawal), Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Potterfield, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Judge.
Anthony Rodriguez entered Alford1 pleas to willful injury and first-degree
harassment. Rodriguez was ordered to register as a sex offender as part of his
sentencing after the district court made a separate determination that the
harassment offense was sexually motivated. Rodriguez appeals the district
court’s finding that his harassment conviction was sexually motivated under Iowa
Code section 692A.126 (2015). He also appeals the district court’s imposition of
consecutive sentences, contending the court failed to articulate sufficient
reasons. Because we find substantial evidence to support the district court’s
determination Rodriguez’s crime was sexually motivated, we affirm the portion of
the sentencing order requiring him to register as a sex offender. However,
because the district court failed to provide sufficient reasons to impose
consecutive sentences, that portion of the sentencing order is vacated, and the
case is remanded for resentencing.
During the sentencing hearing, the district court made a separate
determination that the harassment offense was sexually motivated, basing this
decision upon evidence admitted and testimony received in the hearing. The
victim, Rodriguez’s former wife, was asked:
Q. And the statement that you gave . . . right after the
assault, you said that during the strangulation when Anthony had a
towel wrapped around your neck and then afterwards he said, I
know it sounds weird, but you’re kind of sexy when you’re knocked
out. He said that, didn’t he? A. Yes.
1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (holding that an accused may
consent to the imposition of a sentence even if he is unwilling or unable to admit his
participation in the acts constituting the crime).
3
The district court concluded that this testimony, in addition to the other
evidence admitted into the record, established beyond a reasonable doubt that
the acts were sexually motivated. Because we find substantial evidence to
support this conclusion, we affirm the finding that the harassment was sexually
motivated and affirm that portion of the district court’s sentencing order requiring
Rodriguez to register as a sex offender pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(b),
(d), and (e).
As to Rodriguez’s claim attacking the consecutive sentence portion of the
sentencing ordering, our supreme court recently ruled that sentencing courts
must now “explicitly state the reasons for imposing a consecutive sentence,
although in doing so the court may rely on the same reasons for imposing a
sentence of incarceration.” State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016).
Because the record does not adequately reveal sufficient reasons for imposing
consecutive sentences, we vacate that portion of the sentencing order and
remand the case for resentencing. See Iowa Ct. R. 21.26(1)(c).
SENTENCE AFFIRMED IN PART AND VACATED IN PART, AND
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.