IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14

- 0056 Filed October 29, 2014 STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. GABRIEL ELIJAH BADDING, Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Ian K. Thornhill , Judge.

Gabriel Elijah Badding appeals his sentence of incarceration , claiming it was illegal as not supported by sufficient findings

. AFFIRMED.

Brian D. Johnson of Jacobsen, Johnson & Viner, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney General, Janet Lyness, County Attorney, and Jude Pannell, Assi stant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Mullins, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.2

MULLINS, J. Gabriel Badding pled guilty to willful injury causing bodily injury and to assault causing bodily injury. The district court denied his request for a deferred judgment and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of incarceration of no more than five years. Badding appeals the sentence, claiming it was illegal as not supported by sufficient findings. We review the district court’ s sentencing decision for correction of errors at law. State v. Formaro , 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) provides in part that the court should state on the record the reasons for selecting the particular sente nce. We reverse if there has been an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Id. “Although the explanation need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court’s discr etionary action.” State v. Oliver , 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). The purpose of this rule is to allow the appellate court to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion. State v. Mai , 572 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997).
The record clearly establishes that the court reviewed the presentence investigation report (PSI) , which included on e victim impact statement, and admitted into evidence and review ed six exhibits (five letters of reference and a receipt for college tuition) Badding offered at the sentencing hearing. The State’s attorney argued for incarceration, and supported the argument by incorporating the PSI recommendation reviewing the nature of the offenses and harm to3

victims. Badding’s attorney argued the impulsive natur e of the offense contrasted with a “thought

- out with malice attempt on someone’s life.” He emphasized Badding’s recent employment, his education plans, the support of family and friends, and his participation in therapy. Badding addressed the court
in mi tigation, and apologized for his actions. Badding requested a deferred judgment.
T he district court explained: I have read the entirety of the presentence report, inc luding the Victim Impact Statement that’ s attached as I ’ ve referenced, read the Defendant ’ s exhibits here that were presented an d received by the Court today. A deferred judgment i s not appropriate in thi s case. This is a very serious offense and, as Mr. Pannell pointed out. Mr. Badding , but more importantly, M r

. Villhauer

— I believe that ’ s how you say his name is very lucky that this case wasn ’ t even more serious

. Because of the serious nature of this offense, not only is a deferred judgment not appropriate, I don ’ t think probation i s appropriate eit her. This wasn ’ t an accidental stabbing

. Thi s was a
— from what I can see, a purposef u l stabbi ng mu ltiple times of one victim and then cutting or stabbing of another victim who was trying to intervene. So, therefore, having considered all of the relevant materials in this case , I hereby adjudicate the Defendant guilty

. . . [ and impose sentence].
B y reference , the sentencing judge considered Badding’s education, his family circumstances, his current therapy, his employment, his prior criminal record, and the contents of the PSI report. Specifical ly, he discussed the seriousness of the offense and the harm to one of the victims. Although the better practice is for a sentencing court to articulate all the specific factors it considered, t he court adequately stated on the record its reasons for selecting4

the particular sentence and did not rely on any impermissible factor. The court did not abuse its discretion.
AFFIRMED.