IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 0770 Filed April 1 9 , 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs. HIRAM ANTONIO SERRANO , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Muscati ne County, Nancy S.
Tabor , Judge.

Hiram Serrano appeals his conviction s and sentence s following his guilty plea s 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 conviction s and sentence s following his guilty plea s 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 a nd 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, t he State charged Serrano wi th 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 gu ilty 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
statut e of limitations and the statutory amendments to the burglary offense. After a hearing, t he dist rict court sentenced Serrano to two terms of incarceration not to exceed ten years, to run consecutively. The court also imp osed a $1000 fine and a fifteen

- p ercent 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 Cr iminal 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 fav or.” 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.” Th is rule also applies to a court’ s decision to impose consecutive sentence s , 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 succi nct 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 sentence s imposed by the district court

w ere not clearly untenable or unreasonable. 2 The district court did not abuse its dis cretion 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 sentence s imposed w ere precisely that to which Serrano agreed in his plea agreement with the State.