IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-1627

Filed June 24, 2015

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

OLDEN BUTLER JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Mark R. Lawson, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence, alleging the district court failed to 

consider minimum essential factors. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney 

General, Michael J. Walton, County Attorney, and Kelly G. Cunningham, 

Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Doyle, JJ.
2

VAITHESWARAN, J.

This appeal raises a challenge to the district court’s reasons for imposing 

a particular sentence.

I. Background Proceedings

Olden Butler Jr. pled guilty to domestic abuse assault-second offense, in

violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(3)(b) (2013). The department of 

correctional services prepared an informal report detailing Butler’s lengthy 

criminal history, including prior convictions for domestic abuse assault and two 

violations of no-contact orders.

The district court sentenced Butler to a prison term not exceeding two 

years and ordered the sentence to be served consecutively with the sentence for 

which he was currently on parole, assuming his parole was revoked. The court 

stated its reasons for the sentence as follows:

The reasons for the court’s sentence, Mr. Butler, are your four[1]

prior convictions of domestic abuse assault, including prior 

violations of a no-contact order. The court has also taken into 

consideration your rather extensive criminal record, but of particular 

import to the court is the fact that you have been convicted on four 

prior occasions of domestic abuse assault. The reason the court 

has ordered consecutive sentences to your parole matter is the fact 

that you were on parole when this offense was committed, again, 

your prior history of domestic, and the court’s need to hopefully 

provide a specific deterrent to you to not commit this kind of crime

in the future. That’s the reason for the consecutive sentencing.

On appeal, Butler contends the district court relied solely on his criminal 

history in sentencing him, to the exclusion of other pertinent factors. See State v. 

Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 1982) (“[T]he nature of the offense; the 

 

1 While the district court counted four prior convictions, our review of the informal report 

reveals five prior convictions for domestic abuse assault.
3

attendant circumstances; and the defendant’s age, character, propensities and 

chances of reform are ‘minimal essential factors’ to be considered when 

exercising sentencing discretion.” (quoting State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393,

396 (Iowa 1979))). Our review is for an abuse of discretion. State v. Thacker, 

862 N.W.2d 402, 405 (Iowa 2015).

Although the district court emphasized Butler’s criminal history, the court 

also expressed concern about Butler’s prospects for reform, noting the deterrent 

value of imposing consecutive sentences. See State v. Uthe, 542 N.W.2d 810, 

816 (Iowa 1996) (requiring at least a “terse explanation of why” consecutive 

sentences were imposed). The court’s reasons were “sufficient to enable us to 

determine if an abuse of discretion occurred.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11

(Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Discerning no abuse, we affirm Butler’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.