No. 5-476 / 04-1634Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed August 31, 2005
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Harrison County, Keith E. Burgett (guilty plea) and James Richardson (sentencing), Judges.
John Ira Bellville appeals from the sentences imposed by the district court following his guilty pleas to various drug offenses. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and David Arthur Adams, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Judson L. Frisk, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Mahan, P.J., and Zimmer and Miller, JJ.
ZIMMER, J.
John Ira Bellville appeals from the sentences imposed following his guilty pleas to various drug offenses. He claims he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to appeal. He also claims the district court erred by failing to exercise its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and by failing to give adequate reasons for the sentences imposed. We affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings
On October 7, 2002, authorities investigating a complaint of a suspicious vehicle near Round Lake in Mondamin stopped Bellville’s vehicle. Bellville was a passenger in the vehicle. Officers smelled the odor of anhydrous ammonia coming from the vehicle. A search of the occupants and the vehicle resulted in the discovery of marijuana, drug paraphernalia, methamphetamine, anhydrous ammonia in a thermos, lithium batteries, pseudoephedrine, Coleman fuel, plastic tubing, glass and plastic containers, and numerous other items associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine.
Based on this incident, the State charged Bellville with twelve drug offenses.[1] He appeared before the district court in December of 2002 and entered guilty pleas to nine of the original twelve charges.[2] Bellville’s guilty pleas were part of an agreement to transfer him to drug court. When Bellville pled guilty, the district court informed him that if he successfully completed the drug court program, all of the charges against him would be dismissed. He was also informed that if he did not successfully complete the program, he would be sentenced to consecutive prison terms. The court accepted Bellville’s pleas of guilty and ordered him into treatment as part of the drug court program.
On August 2, 2003, Bellville violated the terms of his probation. Bellville admitted the violation, and on August 28, 2003, the court sentenced him to consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling fifty-two years. In January 2004 the sentencing judge gave Bellville another chance. The court reconsidered Bellville’s sentence and returned him to probation under the drug court program.
Bellville violated his probation again in October 2004. He admitted the violation, and the court re-imposed consecutive prison terms totaling fifty-two years. Bellville appeals.
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review a sentence imposed by the district court for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4; State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). We will not disturb a sentence on appeal unless the defendant shows an abuse of the trial court’s discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure. State v. Sandifer, 570 N.W.2d 256, 257 (Iowa Ct.App. 1997). The trial court’s sentencing decisions “are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.” State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 759 (Iowa 1998). An abuse of discretion may be found when the sentencing court exercises its discretion “on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Sandifer, 570 N.W.2d at 257.
III. Discussion
A. Waiver of Right to Appeal
When Bellville pled guilty, he purportedly waived his right to appeal as a part of the agreement to transfer his case to drug court. Bellville now contends he did not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waive his right to appeal. The record reveals his contention has merit. The colloquy between Bellville and the district court at his plea hearing was inadequate because the court never inquired as to whether Bellville knew he had a right to appeal, knew he was giving up his right to appeal voluntarily, and understood the consequences of giving up his appeal rights See State v. Loye, 670 N.W.2d 141, 148-50 (Iowa 2003). Therefore, we will proceed to address the merits of Bellville’s challenge to the district court’s judgment and sentence.
B. Consecutive Sentences
Bellville argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences and erred in failing to give adequate reasons for the sentences imposed. He contends the sentencing court failed to exercise its discretion by relying solely on his past agreement as the basis for its decision to impose consecutive sentences.
A district court must state on the record its reasons for imposition of a particular sentence. Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d); State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). The court must provide specific reasoning regarding why consecutive sentences are warranted in the particular case State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). However, where the sentencing court is merely giving effect to the parties’ agreement a failure to state reasons for the sentence imposed is not reversible error. State v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755, 756-57 (Iowa 1995); State v. Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728, 729
(Iowa 1983).
It is apparent form the record that Bellville entered the diversionary drug court program in December 2002 with the clear understanding that all of his charges would be dismissed if he successfully completed the drug court program. It is also clear that Bellville understood he would receive consecutive sentences if he did not successfully complete the program.[3] Upon inquiry by the district court at his second sentencing on October 8, 2004, Bellville confirmed he had previously agreed that he would receive consecutive sentences if he failed to successfully complete the drug court program.
Under the circumstances presented here, we believe the district court was merely giving effect to the parties’ agreement regarding disposition of this case if Bellville failed to complete the drug court program.[4] Under these circumstances, we do not believe the district court abused its discretion in failing to state additional reasons for the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s judgment and sentence.
AFFIRMED.
(Iowa 1981).