State v. Luke

1

State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Scott Randolph Luke, Appellant.

No. 22-1367

Supreme Court of Iowa

March 22, 2024

Submitted January 23, 2024

On review from Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Karen Kaufman Salic, District Associate Judge.

A defendant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision affirming his prison sentence for domestic abuse assault second, contending that the district court abused its discretion and failed to give reasons for consecutive sentences. Decision of Court of Appeals and District Court Judgment Affirmed.

Karmen R. Anderson of Anderson &Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General for appellee.

Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Christensen, C.J., and McDonald, Oxley, and May, JJ., joined. McDermott, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Waterman J., joined.

Mansfield, Justice.

Antipholus of Syracuse. Shall I tell you why?

Dromio of Syracuse. Ay, sir, and wherefore, for they say every why hath a wherefore.

William Shakespeare, The Comedy of Errors act 2, sc 2, ll. 44-46.

I. Introduction.

Iowa law gives district courts the discretion to determine if sentences should be served concurrently or consecutively. But the law also requires the court to state its reasons-the whys and wherefores-for doing so.

In this case, the defendant committed domestic abuse assault while on probation for previously committing two other domestic abuse assaults. After he pleaded guilty, the district court sentenced him to two years in prison for the latter offense, revoked his probation and sent him to prison on the earlier offenses, and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. The defendant appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him to prison on the current domestic abuse assault charge. He also argued that the district court failed to adequately state its reasons for running the sentences consecutively. The court of appeals affirmed. It held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prison term for the latest offense. It also held "by the slimmest of margins" that the district court's statement of reasons for consecutive sentences was sufficient.

On further review, we affirm the district court and the court of appeals. At the sentencing hearing, the district court gave the defendant a detailed and personalized explanation for why it was sending him to prison. Although the district court did not specifically discuss reasons for running that sentence consecutively to the sentence imposed on the probation revocation, it cured that omission in the written sentencing order, which referenced the reasons "stated on the record" as a ground for consecutive sentences. Additionally, the sentence imposed was well within the district court's broad discretion. Accordingly, we find no error in the defendant's sentence.

II. Background Facts and Proceedings.

In 2021, Scott Luke pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault (strangulation) and domestic abuse assault (second offense), both aggravated misdemeanors, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.2A(2)(d) (2021) and 708.2A(3)(b). On the strangulation charge, Luke was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed two years. On the second offense charge, he was sentenced to 365 days in jail. All but thirty days were suspended, and he was placed on probation for two years.

The following year, Luke violated the terms of his probation by committing another domestic assault. On the evening of April 6, 2022, at around 9:00 p.m., the Mason City Police Department received a call regarding a domestic dispute between Luke and A.L.

Officer Tiedemann was the first to arrive at the residence, less than ten minutes later. He knocked on the door multiple times before Luke and A.L. answered together. According to Officer Tiedemann, A.L. "immediately came out and started showing [him] red marks around her collar bone area" and "some scratches on her neck." A.L. also had visible bruising on her side. A.L. reported that Luke had choked her to the point where she briefly became unconscious. Luke had also asked her if she wanted to die. Meanwhile, Luke claimed that he "never touched her." He suggested the scratch marks had come from the children and the bruises from the dog.

Luke was arrested and transported to the Cerro Gordo County jail. He was booked on one count of domestic abuse assault, strangulation with bodily injury.

A.L. went to the hospital that evening. Photographs showed injuries to A.L.'s elbow, hand, ribcage, neck, and chest.

Luke was later charged by trial information with domestic abuse assault impeding breathing or circulation of blood causing bodily injury, a class "D" felony, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1(2)(a) (2022), 708.2A(1), and 708.A(5).

In July 2022, the State and Luke entered into a written plea agreement that was approved by the district court. The current charge against Luke was reduced to domestic abuse assault second offense, an aggravated misdemeanor. Iowa Code § 708.2A(3)(b). Luke pleaded guilty to that charge without an agreement as to disposition.

On August 15, the district court held a combined hearing on Luke's probation revocation and his sentencing on the current charge. The State asked for the original sentence to be imposed on the probation revocation and for a two-year sentence to be imposed on the current domestic abuse assault second charge. Luke requested contempt as a sanction for the probation violation and no more than a suspended sentence. Luke waived his right of allocution.

The district court revoked probation on the earlier charges and imposed the original prison term; the court also sentenced Luke to two years in prison on the current domestic abuse assault second charge. Before orally pronouncing sentence on the current charge, the district court stated that it would consider Luke's need for rehabilitation and the need to protect the community. The district court then commented specifically on Luke's reaction to the reading of the victim-impact statement, stating:

Mr. Luke, you know, obviously during the reading of the Victim Impact Statement, you had difficulty even listening to that and kind of restraining yourself. I totally get that you don't agree with some of the things that she said. I'm unable to attribute any sort of cause for PTSD on your victim's part or any of those sorts of things so, I mean, there's limited things in that that I can consider, but I certainly can consider your almost inability to contain yourself despite your attorney's efforts. You've committed at this point at least with these two cases I have here two assaults against this woman and you appear to have no remorse for that. ....

You appear to minimize your behavior^1]

Regarding Luke's potential for rehabilitation, the court added,

At some point you have to interact with people differently than you do. That may be impacted if you aren't taking your medications or whatever is going on, I don't have any clue on those things, but, you know, that's something that's within your control whether you take your medications as prescribed or not. You obviously need them, they're beneficial when you take them, and I don't know if that factored into the situation or not. You obviously have a lot of things going on in your family dynamic. The department is involved; you've lost a child, which is heartbreaking for any parent. You're obviously without the coping mechanisms to deal with that in a healthy, lawabiding way. Those circumstances have been in place for a long time with the department. I think it's even something that I was told when we had your sentencing on your other case, which was I think a year ago tomorrow, and things are not improving. The idea of continuing to try to handle this where you do something illegal, you get arrested, you sit in jail for a while, you get out, it's just going to keep repeating itself until you make some significant changes, and I recognize, you know, . . . all those other things that [your attorney] listed, doing the [Iowa Domestic Abuse Program], but, you know, none of that was sufficient to keep us from getting back in here and having the same thing all over again, and, you know, there's a point at which the scale kind of tips on whether we believe we can address your issues in the community or whether you need to be in prison, and, you know, Mr. Luke, we're at that point.

A few moments later, after addressing the no-contact order and some other matters, the district court also ordered that the probation revocation sentence and the current sentence be served "consecutively to each other" without further explanation. Subsequently, the court entered a written sentencing order that stated, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that taking into account Defendant's age, attitude, criminal history, and employment, financial and family circumstances, as well as the nature of the offense, including whether a weapon or force was used in the commission of the offense, the recommendations of the parties, and other matters reflected in the Court file and record, for the protection of society and rehabilitation of Defendant:

Prison. Pursuant to Iowa Code Sections 901.5, 902.3 and 902.9, Defendant is committed to the custody of the director of the Iowa Department of Corrections for an indeterminate term, not to exceed two years. The Sheriff shall transport Defendant to the reception center designated by DOC. Defendant shall be given credit for time previously served in connection with this offense. For the reasons set forth above and/or stated on the record, the sentence shall be served

...