IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0592

Filed May 13, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SEAN CURTIS SINCLAIR,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence P. McLellan, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals his convictions for operating a motor vehicle without 

the owner’s consent and second-degree theft. AFFIRMED.

Leslie G. Peters of East Street Law Firm, PLLC, Shelby, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ.
2

SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Sean Sinclair appeals his convictions for operating a motor vehicle without 

the owner’s consent and second-degree theft. Sinclair has not shown the district 

court incorrectly believed he committed these offenses while on probation. We 

conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Sinclair’s request 

to be placed on probation for the present offenses. We affirm Sinclair’s convictions 

and sentences.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

According to the minutes of testimony, in June 2018, Sinclair was operating 

a 1999 Chevrolet Malibu without the permission of the owner and after the owner

reported the car was stolen. For this conduct, Sinclair was charged with theft in 

the second degree in FECR317744. On August 29, 2018, Sinclair took a 2017 Kia 

Optima from Billion GMC Buick in Urbandale. Sinclair was then charged in 

FECR320143 with theft in the first degree.

Sinclair entered into a plea agreement on the two charges. On October 31, 

in FECR317744, he pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s 

consent, in violation of Iowa Code section 714.7 (2018). In FECR320143, Sinclair 

pled guilty to second-degree theft, in violation of section 714.2(2). The plea 

agreement provided, “Barring any new criminal activity or violation of this order, at 

sentencing the parties will recommend” Sinclair be given suspended sentences 

and placed on probation. The agreement also stated, “On any new criminal charge 

or violation of this order, established by a preponderance of the evidence, the State 

is not bound by this agreement.”
3

While the present charges were pending, Sinclair was charged with 

domestic abuse assault on August 30 in AGCR319749. Additionally, in 

SRCR320144, Sinclair was charged with harassment and false imprisonment. On 

October 31, he pled guilty to assault causing injury, harassment, and false 

imprisonment. He was sentenced immediately on these charges, received 

suspended sentences, and was placed on probation. The State filed an application 

to revoke Sinclair’s probation on January 4, 2019. On January 7 or 8, 2019, 

Sinclair received new charges for malicious prosecution, SRCR323821, and 

possession of drug paraphernalia, SMAC379835. The State filed an amended 

application to revoke probation due to the new charges. 

The sentencing hearing on the charges of operating a motor vehicle without 

the owner’s consent and second-degree theft was held on March 18, 2019. The 

State asserted it was no longer bound by the plea agreement because Sinclair had 

received new charges in SRCR323821 and SMAC379835. A hearing on the 

probation violation matters in AGCR319749 and SRCR320144 was also held on 

March 18, 2019. The State recommended a sentence of two years on the charge 

of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and five years on the 

charge of second-degree theft, to be served consecutively for a total of seven 

years.1

Sinclair asked to be placed on probation. He offered the testimony of Frank 

Ede of the Hope Ministries Journey of Hope program. Ede testified Sinclair was a 

 

1

 The State also recommended the sentences in these two cases be made 

consecutive to Sinclair’s sentences in AGCR319749 and SRCR32014 if his 

probation was revoked.
4

great candidate for the program, which provided men with opportunities to 

overcome an addictive lifestyle and succeed in the community.

The court sentenced Sinclair to a term of imprisonment not to exceed five 

years on the charge of second-degree theft and two years on the charge of 

operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent, to be served consecutively. 

The sentences were also made consecutive to Sinclair’s sentence in the probationrevocation matter. The court made the sentences consecutive “because of the 

separate and serious nature of each of those offenses.” The court also stated the 

new charges were committed while Sinclair was on probation. The court stated 

probation would not be appropriate because of Sinclair’s criminal history. Sinclair 

now appeals his convictions and sentences.

II. Standard of Review

We review a district court’s sentencing decision for the correction of errors 

at law. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). “We will not reverse 

the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in 

the sentencing procedure.” Id. “An abuse of discretion is found only when the 

sentencing court exercises its discretion on grounds or for reasons clearly 

untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 

744 (Iowa 1999) (citation omitted).

III. Sentencing

A. Sinclair challenges the sentencing order.2 The written sentencing 

order for the charges of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and 

 

2

 The State claims recent legislation, section 814.6 (2020), precludes a defendant 

from appealing a guilty plea. The Iowa Supreme Court has determined section 
5

second-degree theft has boxes checked indicating the sentences should be served 

consecutively based on “the separate and serious nature of the offenses” and 

“crime committed while defendant on parole/probation.” Sinclair points out that he 

was not on probation when these offenses were committed. The offense of 

operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent was committed in June 2018 

and the offense of second-degree theft was committed in August 2018. Sinclair 

was placed on probation in the separate offenses of assault causing injury, 

harassment, and false imprisonment, AGCR319749 and SRCR320144, in October 

2018.

The district court correctly stated at the sentencing hearing that Sinclair 

committed new offenses, malicious prosecution, SRCR323821, and possession of 

drug paraphernalia, SMAC379835, while he was on probation on the charges of 

assault causing injury, harassment, and false imprisonment. The court stated, 

“The new charges, as I understand, were committed while you were on probation.” 

Defense counsel agreed with this statement.

The court’s statements at the sentencing hearing show one of the reasons 

for imposing consecutive sentences was Sinclair’s commission of new offenses 

while on probation. In this light, we do not interpret the box checked on the written 

sentencing order to mean the court incorrectly believed Sinclair committed the 

offenses of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent and seconddegree theft while on probation. It is clear from the transcript of the sentencing 

 

814.6 “do[es] not apply to a direct appeal from a judgment and sentence entered 

before July 1, 2019.” State v. Macke, 933 N.W.2d 226, 228 (Iowa 2019). We 

conclude the new legislation does not apply in this case.
6

hearing, which includes the colloquy with counsel, that the court was aware that 

the offenses of malicious prosecution and possession of drug paraphernalia were 

the new charges committed while Sinclair was on probation.3 We conclude Sinclair 

is not entitled to resentencing on this ground.

B. Sinclair contends the district court should have placed him on 

probation, rather than sending him to prison. He asserts the court should have 

given more weight to the testimony of Ede that he would be a “great candidate” for 

the Journey of Hope program. Ede stated he was aware of Sinclair’s criminal 

history but believed Sinclair was willing to work with the program to improve his 

life.

The district court recognized the testimony of Ede. The court recommended 

that Sinclair enter the Journey of Hope program when he was released from prison. 

The court stated that based on Sinclair’s criminal history, probation would not be 

appropriate. The court stated, “But I think at this point in time, based upon 

everything that I’ve reviewed, that incarceration is the appropriate sentence in this

matter.” 

Sinclair had been placed on probation for the offenses of assault causing 

injury, harassment, and false imprisonment in October 2018, and his probation 

was revoked in March 2019 because he committed the offenses of malicious 

prosecution and possession of drug paraphernalia. We conclude the district court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying Sinclair’s request to be placed on probation 

 

3

 “A rule of nearly universal application is that where there is a discrepancy 

between the oral pronouncement of sentence and the written judgment and 

commitment, the oral pronouncement of sentence controls.” State v. Hess, 533 

N.W.2d 525, 528 (Iowa 1995) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
7

for the present offenses of operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent 

and second-degree theft.

We affirm Sinclair’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.