IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 16-0770

Filed April 19, 2017

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

HIRAM ANTONIO SERRANO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscatine County, Nancy S. 

Tabor, Judge.

Hiram Serrano appeals his convictions and sentences following his guilty 

pleas to voluntary manslaughter and second-degree burglary. AFFIRMED. 

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Mary K. Conroy, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

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

takes no part. 
2

MULLINS, Presiding Judge.

Hiram Serrano appeals his convictions and sentences following his guilty 

pleas to voluntary manslaughter, a class “C” felony, in violation of Iowa Code 

section 707.4 (1989), and burglary in the second degree, a class “C” felony, in 

violation of section 713.5. 

In the early hours of November 14, 1990, Serrano broke into the home of 

Theresa Jackson, his on-and-off live-in girlfriend and mother of two of his 

children, and slashed her throat. Jackson’s young son woke up and found her 

lying in a pool of blood and ran to a family member’s house for help. Jackson 

was left paralyzed from her upper chest down. She died on October 5, 2012, as 

a result of complications from her paralysis. 

In 2013, the State charged Serrano with murder in the first degree, a class 

“A” felony, and burglary in the second degree. The State subsequently amended 

the trial information, charging Serrano with one count of voluntary manslaughter 

and one count of second-degree burglary. Serrano pled guilty to both charges. 

Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties recommended a ten-year term of 

incarceration on each count to run consecutively and two suspended fines of 

$1000 each. In addition, Serrano waived any claim or defense regarding the 

statute of limitations and the statutory amendments to the burglary offense. 

After a hearing, the district court sentenced Serrano to two terms of 

incarceration not to exceed ten years, to run consecutively. The court also 

imposed a $1000 fine and a fifteen-percent surcharge on each count, suspended 

the fines and surcharges, and ordered Serrano to pay court costs and restitution. 
3

On appeal, Serrano claims the district court’s reasoning for imposing 

consecutive sentences was insufficient under Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 

2.23(3)(d).1 “We review sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion or defect in 

the sentencing procedure.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Iowa 2015). 

“An abuse of discretion will only be found when a court acts on grounds clearly 

untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. (quoting State v. Leckington, 

713 N.W.2d 208, 216 (Iowa 2006)). “We give sentencing decisions by a trial 

court a strong presumption in their favor.” Id. “On our review, we do not decide 

the sentence we would have imposed, but whether the sentence imposed was 

unreasonable.” Id. at 554. 

Rule 2.23(3)(d) requires the court to “state on the record its reason for 

selecting the particular sentence.” This rule also applies to a court’s decision to 

impose consecutive sentences, but “in doing so the court may rely on the same 

reasons for imposing a sentence of incarceration.” Hill, 878 N.W.2d at 275. “A 

terse and succinct statement is sufficient . . . when the reasons for the exercise 

of discretion are obvious in light of the statement and the record before the 

court.” State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015). 

Here, the district court stated: “[I]n this case I do find that there is just 

cause due to the severity of the cases and the separate crimes committed that 

the sentences should be served consecutive with each other.” Although the 

recitation by the court was succinct, when read together with the record before 

 

1 He further claims State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269 (Iowa 2016), implicitly overruled State 

v. Cason, 532 N.W.2d 755 (Iowa 1995), and State v. Snyder, 336 N.W.2d 728 (Iowa 

1983). Because we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing 

Serrano to two consecutive terms, we need not reach Serrano’s other claims. 
4

the court and the arguments of counsel, the reasons were sufficient to satisfy us 

the court exercised its discretion. The sentences imposed by the district court 

were not clearly untenable or unreasonable.2 The district court did not abuse its 

discretion in sentencing Serrano to a period of incarceration not to exceed ten 

years on each count, to be served consecutively. Accordingly, we affirm. 

AFFIRMED.

 

2 Although we acknowledge the district court did not rely on the parties’ plea agreement 

in sentencing Serrano, we note the sentences imposed were precisely that to which 

Serrano agreed in his plea agreement with the State.