STATE v. LAURIDSEN, 699 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa App. 2005)

No. 5-301 / 04-1954Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Filed May 11, 2005

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Shelby County, James S. Heckerman, Judge.

Todd Lauridsen appeals from the sentence entered upon his guilty plea to eluding, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(2) (2003). AFFIRMED.

Patrick Sondag of Root Sondag, Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, and Marcus Gross, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Miller and Hecht, JJ.

HECHT, J.

On January 21, 2004, the State charged Todd Lauridsen with eluding, in violation of Iowa Code section 321.279(2) (2003), and driving while revoked, in violation of section 321J.21. Lauridsen and the State later entered into a plea agreement. Lauridsen agreed to plead guilty to the eluding charge and the State agreed to dismiss the driving while revoked charge. The plea agreement expressly disclosed the State’s intention to request a two-year term of incarceration. The court accepted the plea and set sentencing for November 29, 2004. On that date, the court sentenced Lauridsen to a term of incarceration not to exceed two years and ordered him to pay court costs and attorney fees. Lauridsen appeals from this sentence.

We review sentencing challenges for errors at law. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). “A sentence will not be upset on appellate review unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure, such as trial court consideration of impermissible factors.” Id. (citations omitted).

On appeal, Lauridsen alleges the district court abused its discretion by failing to state reasons on the record for the two-year prison sentence. Our review of the written sentencing order reveals no exposition of the court’s reasons for the particular sentence. However, the record does not include a transcript of the sentencing proceeding.

The State acknowledges a trial court must state on the record its reasons for selecting a particular sentence, see Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d), but asserts Lauridsen’s failure to provide a record of the sentencing hearing precludes appellate review by this court. We agree.

In State v. Mudra, 532 N.W.2d 765 (Iowa 1995), our supreme court addressed a similar contention that the district court abused its discretion in failing to state reasons on the record for the particular sentence imposed. The supreme court found it could not “find clear abuse in the record Mudra provided on appeal” because he waived transcription of the sentencing hearing and “made no attempt to make a record of the district court proceedings by either a supplemental statement of proceedings under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure [6.10(3)] or by creating a bill of exceptions under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure [2.25].”Mudra, 532 N.W.2d at 767.

Here, despite the absence of stated reasons in the court’s written sentencing order, it appears there was a sentencing proceeding[1] at which the court could have provided, on the record, a statement of the reasons for the sentence imposed. Thus, it was Lauridsen’s obligation to provide this court with a record affirmatively disclosing the error relied upon. Id.
(citing State v. Ludwig, 305 N.W.2d 511, 513 (Iowa 1981)). By failing to provide such a record, Lauridsen has waived error on his claim.

AFFIRMED.