IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0940

Filed April 8, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DAVID CYRIL WILSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Sioux County, Rosemary Sackett, 

Judge. 

A criminal defendant appeals from his sentence contending the district 

court failed to afford him the right to allocution. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert P. Ranschau, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Alexandra Link, Assistant Attorney 

General, Thomas Kunstle, County Attorney, and Andrea Glasgow, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ. Sackett, 

S.J., takes no part.
2

MULLINS, J.

David Cyril Wilson pled guilty to indecent contact with a child and was 

sentenced to two years in prison, a civil penalty, continuation of the no-contact 

order, and DNA profiling as a sex offender. He appeals from his sentence 

contending the district court failed to afford him a right to allocution. 

We review sentencing procedures for an abuse of discretion. State v. 

Nosa, 738 N.W.2d 658, 660 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007). Abuse will be found “only if 

the district court’s discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly 

untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Id. Iowa Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the sentencing court to allow “counsel for the 

defendant, and the defendant personally . . . to address the court where either 

wishes to make a statement in mitigation of punishment.” “Sentencing courts are 

not required to use any particular language to satisfy rule 2.23(3)(d).” Nosa, 738 

N.W.2d at 660. “As long as the district court provides the defendant with an 

opportunity to speak regarding his punishment, the court is in compliance with 

the rule.” Id. Substantial compliance is sufficient. State v. Craig, 562 N.W.2d 

633, 635 (Iowa 1997). 

Wilson appeared for sentencing. The court asked Wilson if he understood 

the plea agreement. Wilson stated, “Yes.” The court then heard sentencing 

recommendations. The court asked both parties numerous questions clarifying 

the basis for the recommendations. The court then stated that the court 

considered the safety of the community, and engaged in the following exchange:

THE COURT: The defendant has not presented to the Court 

any evidence that if put on probation he will be able to be gainfully 
3

employed in order to pay for the treatment he feels that he needs. 

Is there any response to that, counsel? 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Your Honor, I would like the 

defendant to address the Court. He will tell you where he was 

working before and what his plans are if he’s put on probation.

THE COURT: Are you using this as evidence, counsel? 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: Well, it’s like allocution, his right of 

allocution.

THE COURT: Okay. But I should swear your client in 

before he gives me this information?

DEFENSE COUNSEL: No, Your Honor. It’s just an 

allocution.

THE COURT: Okay. You may proceed.

Wilson then informed the court of his employment plans. The court asked a 

number of questions about the employment. After further discussion, the court 

pronounced its sentence.

In State v. Glenn, 431 N.W.2d 193, 194 (Iowa Ct. App. 1988), the court of 

appeals found a sentencing colloquy in which the court asked the defendant if he 

understood the plea agreement and then discussed with the defendant his 

employment situation provided the defendant an adequate opportunity to address 

the court. Here, defense counsel affirmatively requested the opportunity for 

allocution for his client before the court offered it. We find the ensuing discussion 

gave Wilson adequate opportunity to speak regarding his punishment. The court 

complied substantially with the rule. Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion, 

and we affirm the sentence.

AFFIRMED.