IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1492

Filed June 7, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

CHARLES ROBERT DAVIDSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Tama County, Sean W. McPartland, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence following a guilty plea. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Nan Jennisch, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

Charles Davidson pled guilty1to attempting to entice a minor in violation of 

Iowa Code section 710.10(4) (2016) and was sentenced to a term of incarceration 

not to exceed two years. Davidson appeals, arguing the district court “failed to 

articulate adequate reasons for a particular sentence.” We disagree with Davidson

and affirm the sentence imposed by the district court.

A district court, when entering judgment, is required to “state on the record 

its reason for selecting the particular sentence.” Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(3)(d). “[A]

‘terse and succinct’ statement may be sufficient, ‘so long as the brevity of the 

court’s statement does not prevent review of the exercise of the trial court’s 

sentencing discretion,’” and “only 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) (citation omitted). Boilerplate 

language or vague, generalized comments alone are not sufficient. Id. “The failure 

of the district court to adequately cite its reasons for a sentence on the record is 

ordinarily reversible error.” Id. at 409. Still, “the decision of the district court to 

impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong 

presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or 

the consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 

724 (Iowa 2002). “An abuse of discretion will not be found unless we are able to 

1 A defendant typically needs good cause to appeal from a guilty plea. Here, both 

parties agree Davidson satisfies that requirement. See State v. Damme, 944 

N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (“We hold that good cause exists to appeal from a 

conviction following a guilty plea when the defendant challenges his or her 

sentence rather than the guilty plea.”). 
3

discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly 

untenable or unreasonable.” Id. 

When sentencing Davidson, the district court stated:

The reasons for the disposition here and for the sentence is 

that this was a serious action which does have consequences, and 

the Court finds that the indeterminate term not to exceed two years 

will hold the defendant accountable while also providing the 

opportunity for defendant to make use of services that might be 

available to him and also for the protection of the community from 

offenses by the defendant and others. 

The factors included in the Court’s consideration include the 

defendant’s age, prior criminal record, his employment and family 

circumstances, the nature of the offense, and the harm to the victim 

here.

The Court also finds that this is appropriate . . . [to] help to 

prohibit or to foreclose any further recidivism in connection with this 

type of conduct. . . .

. . . .

I do find that one of the factors for consideration of the Court 

here is the fact that the victim in this matter was a family member of 

the defendant in whom the trust of the defendant was placed and 

that that is a factor for the Court’s determination. There was a 

position of authority or some respect here on which I believe the 

defendant has taken some advantage, and so that is a factor for the 

Court’s consideration.

This is more than just vague generalizations or only boilerplate language. 

Compare State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800, 802 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987) (determining 

the record for an unreported sentencing was insufficient when the district court only 

stated it considered “the circumstances of the offense, and the defendant’s prior 

background”), with State v. Adams, No. 21-1756, 2022 WL 3907749, at *2 (Iowa 

Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022) (“At the sentencing hearing, and in its written order, the 

district court expressly noted its consideration of the relevant sentencing factors. 

Yet Adams argues this was inadequate because the court did not connect the 

stated reasons to ‘this defendant’s character and this defendant’s criminal history.’ 
4

To the contrary, the court specifically discussed the sentencing factors that applied 

to Adams, highlighting the ‘nature of the charges’ and Adams’s criminal history as 

the most relevant factors while also citing his age, character, employment, family 

situation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.”). Here, the district court pointed to 

important considerations that were appropriate in light of the crime committed and 

specific to the circumstances involved. We have ample information for our review. 

And after that review we find no abuse of the district court’s discretion, so we affirm 

the sentence. 

AFFIRMED.