IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0336

Filed October 19, 2022

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SPENCER JERRICK CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Zrinyi 

Ackley, Judge.

Spencer Jerrick Carter appeals the sentence imposed for his conviction for 

domestic abuse assault, second offense. AFFIRMED. 

Daniel A. Dlouhy of Dlouhy Law, PC, East Dubuque, Illinois, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., Tabor, J., and Scott, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2022).
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

Spencer Jerrick Carter pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault, second 

offense. He appeals the sentence imposed, asserting the district court abused its 

sentencing discretion. The district court’s reasoning was neither unreasonable nor 

untenable, and thus we find no abuse of sentencing discretion. We affirm.

On February 14, 2022, Carter appeared for a global sentencing hearing 

related to four separate criminal cases and nine separate charges.

1

 With respect 

1 The global plea provides, in part:

FECR143874 (Count III): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did knowingly act in a 

manner that created a substantial risk to the physical, mental or 

emotional health or safety of a child.

FECR143874 (Count IV): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did harass [T.W.] and 

threaten to commit a forcible felony.

FECR143874 (Count V): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did commit an assault 

against [M.L.], a uniformed peace officer.

FECR143874 (Count VI): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did commit an assault 

against [T.S.], a firefighter.

FECR143874 (Count VII): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did commit an assault 

against [S.H.], a firefighter.

SRCR143192 (Count I): That on or about August 17, 2021, in 

Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did commit an assault against 

[N.E.O.] with whom Defendant had a domestic relationship, causing 

bodily injury and having been previously convicted of domestic 

assault in case number 04CR10134 in Beltrami County, Minnesota 

in August of 2010.

SMCR143875 (Count I): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did knowingly resist or 

obstruct Officer [H.], a uniformed peace officer, in the performance 

of his lawful duty.

SMCR143875 (Count II): That on or about October 14, 2021, 

in Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did knowingly resist or 

obstruct Officer [C.M.], a uniformed peace officer, in the performance

of his lawful duty.
3

to the conviction at issue here—SRCR143192, domestic abuse assault, second 

offense—the district court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment to be served 

consecutive to other sentences imposed. Carter appeals.

At the sentencing hearing, the court explained its sentencing decision:

These are a lot of offenses to consider, and the thing that is 

most problematic to me is the fact that there is a problem with alcohol 

but when some of these things have been occurring, alcohol was not 

the issue. So you’ve got a temper, you and [N.O.] obviously don’t 

have compatibility, and you talked about that, so you’ve got charges 

against her, with her, that resulted in your child saying these things, 

which is also not healthy for that child. . . . I saw that the time 

between the last incident and these were a number of years ago. So 

the years passed, and you were doing well. The years passed, and 

you maintained employment. Those are all extremely positive things 

that I consider in and take into consideration for what I have to look

at. Then I have to break it down with regard to each of the offenses, 

what prompted everything how it came about, and what it would do 

to whom. . . . And at your age, making the choice to stay in a

relationship with a woman that you obviously don’t have any respect 

for or you wouldn’t have done what you did to her, that’s also a 

problem. So, I can tell you I do appreciate the fact that you may have 

been responsible for your children, but the other choices you have 

made at your age are not responsible, and I can’t give you a

suspended sentence on them. I will, however, take the

recommendation of the [presentence investigation] as opposed to 

what the State is recommending, so it will give you some relief, and 

I hope that once you get into the system, things go much more 

quickly for you, and that while you’re there, you continue to maintain

sobriety and seek that counseling that is necessary for you to 

recognize what your triggers are and how to stop you from going 

back into that same state.

. . . And then with regard to SRCR 143192, two years. That 

will run consecutive . . . .

The written sentencing order noted the two-year indeterminate term was 

based on 

SRCR144570: That on or about December 7, 2021, in 

Dubuque County, Iowa, the Defendant did knowingly resist or 

obstruct Deputy [S.F.], a uniformed peace officer, in the performance 

of his lawful duty and which resulted in bodily injury.
4

all the available SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS set out in Iowa 

Code section 907.5. The court finds the following factors the most 

significant in determining this particular sentence. . . . The following 

factors are also the reasons for the consecutive sentence if imposed:

- The nature and circumstances of the crime

- The Plea Agreement

- Defendant’s criminal history

- Defendant’s substance abuse history

- Defendant’s propensity for further criminal acts

- Statutory sentence requirements

Among other conditions, the court ordered Carter to obtain a substance-abuse 

evaluation and abide by all recommendations, participate in a domestic-abuse 

program, and have no contact with the victim. Carter appeals the sentence 

imposed.2 

On appeal, Carter asserts the district court abused its sentencing discretion. 

He argues, “The consumption of alcohol is not a propensity for further criminal 

acts—even if the abuse of alcohol may lead to the commitment of criminal acts.” 

He asserts the court “should have more clearly set forth what actions by Mr. Carter 

were an indication of his propensity for further criminal acts.” 

“[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence within 

the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only 

be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate 

matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). 

In applying the abuse of discretion standard to sentencing decisions, 

it is important to consider the societal goals of sentencing criminal 

offenders, which focus on rehabilitation of the offender and the 

protection of the community from further offenses. It is equally 

important to consider the host of factors that weigh in on the often 

2 Because Carter is challenging his sentence, he has good cause to appeal. 

State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (“We hold that good cause 

exists to appeal from a conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant 

challenges his or her sentence rather than the guilty plea.”).
5

arduous task of sentencing a criminal offender, including the nature 

of the offense, the attending circumstances, the age, character and 

propensity of the offender, and the chances of reform.

Id. at 724–25 (internal citations omitted). An abuse of discretion will not be found 

unless we are able to discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for 

reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 

708, 713 (Iowa 1995).

The record we review contains both the written and oral pronouncement of 

sentence. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d) (“The court shall state on the record its 

reason for selecting the particular sentence.”). Carter’s reading of the written order 

is cramped and ignores the court’s oral pronouncement of reasons. When read 

together, we are provided sufficient information to identify the court’s reasons for 

the sentence imposed. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) 

(noting that a “terse and succinct” statement of reasons for a sentencing decision 

is enough if the appellate court can identify “the reasons for the exercise of 

discretion”).

We conclude the court considered relevant factors, including Carter’s 

admitted problems with alcohol use and lack of emotional control when under the 

influence. The court’s consideration was in the context of a multi-case sentencing, 

it explained the sentence was for the protection of the community in part and 

Carter’s possible rehabilitation. The court’s reasons were neither untenable nor 

unreasonable. We affirm.

AFFIRMED.