THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-2046

Filed June 6, 2018

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ZACHARY DONOVAN LEE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Monona County, Jeffrey L. Poulson, 

Judge.

The defendant appeals his sentence. AFFIRMED.

Robert B. Brock II of Law Office of Robert B. Brock II, P.C., Le Mars, for 

appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Potterfield and Tabor, JJ.
2

POTTERFIELD, Judge.

Zachary Lee appeals the sentence he received for his conviction for theft in 

the second degree—a term of incarceration not to exceed five years.

1

 He 

maintains the district court failed to adequately state its reasons on the record for 

the sentence it imposed. He asks that we remand for resentencing.

We review sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law. State v. 

Letscher, 888 N.W.2d 880, 883 (Iowa 2016). “We will not reverse the decision of 

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

procedure.” Id. (citation omitted). Where, as here, the sentence imposed is within 

the statutory limits, it is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor. See State 

v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000); see also Iowa Code §§ 714.2(2) 

(2017) (providing theft in the second degree is a “D” felony), 902.9(1)(e) (stating a 

class “D” felon “shall be confined for no more than five years”).

Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) requires the sentencing court to 

adequately cite its reasons for the sentence on the record. Failure to do so is 

ordinarily reversible error. See State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 409 (Iowa 

2015). The court’s stated reasons must be “sufficient to allow meaningful appellate 

review.” Id. The statements may be “succinct and terse . . . as long as the brevity 

displayed does not prevent us from reviewing the exercise of the trial court’s 

sentencing discretion.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). 

 

1 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Lee also entered a guilty plea to the reduced charge of 

fourth-degree criminal mischief, for which he was sentenced to 120 days in jail that were 

to be served consecutively to the sentence the court chose to impose for the seconddegree theft conviction. Lee does not challenge his sentence for criminal mischief in the 

fourth degree. 
3

At the sentencing hearing, the State advocated for the court to impose a 

term of incarceration, while Lee requested that the court suspend the sentence 

and order Lee to obtain a mental-health evaluation and follow through with any 

treatment prescribed. The court sentenced Lee to a term of incarceration not to 

exceed five years, stating:

The Court has considered all of the sentencing options 

available to it under Iowa law.

Mr. Lee, I’ve—I’ve pondered what to do with your file, and 

simply I’m having difficulty finding redeeming value. You’ve been in 

trouble before, you’ve been on probation, you—you were in trouble 

even after arrested. And I just don’t see that a period of probation is 

going to do anything than delay the inevitable.

Therefore I am going to impose the five-year sentence 

recommended in the Presentence Investigation report. . . .

. . . .

The reasons supporting this sentence include those I’ve 

already stated, plus the Court’s determination that incarceration will 

provide for the maximum opportunity for defendant’s rehabilitation. 

The court finds it’s necessary for the protection of the community 

from further offenses by this defendant and others. I have 

considered defendant’s age, prior record, the fact that he doesn’t 

have a job, the contents of the Presentence Investigation, and the 

plea agreement.

In its written judgment and sentence, the court indicated the same factors were the 

reason for the sentence imposed. 

Lee maintains the district court provided only “boilerplate language,” which 

is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of rule 2.23(3)(d). See Thacker, 862 

N.W.2d at 410. We disagree. The district court’s recitation of reasons establishes 

that the court considered facts and circumstances specific to Lee and then 

exercised its discretion in determining what sentence to impose. We cannot say 
4

the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Lee to a term of incarceration 

not to exceed five years.

AFFIRMED.