IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 17-1765
Filed July 18, 2018
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
TERIONA EDWARDS,
Defendant-Appellant.
_______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Gary P.
Strausser, District Associate Judge.
Teriona Edwards appeals her conviction for driving while barred.
AFFIRMED.
Lauren M. Phelps, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kyle P. Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
2
BOWER, Judge.
Teriona Edwards appeals her conviction for driving while barred, claiming
the court made several sentencing errors. We find the court considered all
required and relevant factors in making its sentencing determination and gave
adequate explanation for the sentence, and evidence supports the sentence. We
affirm.
On June 9, 2017, Edwards was stopped for speeding twelve over the limit
in a fifty-five mile per hour speed zone. Upon review of Edwards’s driver status,
the deputy determined her driving privileges were barred and arrested her.
On August 22, Edwards signed a waiver of rights and guilty plea. Her plea
was accepted on October 3, for driving while barred, in violation of Iowa Code
sections 321.555 and 321.561 (2017); she requested immediate sentencing. The
court sentenced Edwards to 270 days in jail, with 180 days suspended, and work
release. The court suspended the fine, but imposed fees and costs up to $500, to
be paid in installments of fifty dollars per month. Finally, the court ordered two
years unsupervised probation.
Edwards asserts the court abused its discretion in sentencing by failing to
consider all required and relevant factors. Edwards admits the sentence falls
within the statutory limits, yet seeks remand for resentencing.
Challenges to sentences that are within the statutory limits are reviewed for
an abuse of discretion. State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 137 (Iowa 2017). An
appellate court does not second-guess the sentence chosen but examines the
record and determines if the sentence was reached on untenable or unreasonable
3
grounds. State v. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d 153, 173 (Iowa 2018). There is a strong
presumption of proper discretion in sentencing decisions. Id. at 171. Furthermore,
the burden is upon the defendant to show an abuse of discretion by the sentencing
court. Id. If the evidence supports the sentence, there has been no abuse of
discretion. Id. at 173.
During sentencing, the court considers a multitude of factors including the
protection of the community, the rehabilitation of the offender, the crime itself, the
surrounding circumstances, and the age and characteristics of the offender
evidencing the likelihood of rehabilitation or repeat offense. State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 724–25 (Iowa 2002). Additionally, prior to suspending a sentence,
the court must consider an offender’s criminal and sentencing history, familial
situation, employment status, and any other pertinent factors relevant to the goals
of sentencing. Id. at 725. The sentencing court need not explain how every factor
was considered or not considered. State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App.
1995).
A court is required to explain why the particular sentence imposed was
chosen, but not why alternative sentences were rejected. Crooks, 911 N.W.2d at
171. Forms allowing the efficient administration of justice by reducing a sentencing
explanation from a written statement to a checked box can be sufficient. State v.
Thompson, 856 N.W.2d 915, 921 (Iowa 2014). Relying upon cases dealing with
consecutive sentencing and resentencing of juveniles once they become adults,
Edwards contends there is a trend toward requiring more exacting sentencing
explanations. If there is such a trend, it appears confined to those situations and
4
not applicable across the board. In any regard, the explanation for Edwards’s
sentence was sufficient.
The form used in this case states the following:
IT IS THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE OF THIS COURT,
from all the facts and circumstance of this case . . . . The Court
determines that the following sentence will provide the maximum
opportunity for rehabilitation of Defendant and will provide the
maximum protection of the community from further offenses by
Defendant. This determination is based on the factors checked
below:
The nature and circumstances of the offense[.]
Defendant’s criminal history, or lack thereof[.]
Statutory sentencing requirements[.]
The form shows the court considered all required and relevant factors and
provides an adequate explanation for the sentence based upon the evidence. The
court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.