IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0264

Filed October 15, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

SEAN CURTIS SINCLAIR,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dallas County, Virginia Cobb, 

Judge. 

A criminal defendant appeals from his sentence arguing the court failed to 

consider the essential sentencing factors. AFFIRMED. 

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

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney 

General, Wayne Reisetter, County Attorney, and Jeannine R. Gilmore, Assistant 

County Attorney, for appellee.

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

MULLINS, J.

Sean Sinclair appeals from his sentence of two years’ incarceration for 

third-degree criminal mischief contending the district court failed to consider the 

minimal essential factors in its sentencing. 

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

at law. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Iowa Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d) provides in part that the court should state on the 

record the reasons for selecting the particular sentence. We reverse if there has 

been an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. Id. 

“Although the explanation need not be detailed, at least a cursory explanation 

must be provided to allow appellate review of the trial court’s discretionary 

action.” State v. Oliver, 588 N.W.2d 412, 414 (Iowa 1998). The purpose of this 

rule is to allow the appellate court to determine whether there has been an abuse 

of discretion. State v. Mai, 572 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa Ct. App. 1997). 

At sentencing, the State outlined Sinclair’s extensive criminal history and 

gave the following recommendation:

The state is requesting the court to sentence the defendant 

for an indeterminate period of two years with the Department of 

Corrections. . . . 

With Mr. Sinclair’s history it’s very apparent that he does not 

want to live by the rules of the criminal law that society has set out, 

he is better served by the community for its protection that he be 

sentenced to this term of incarceration on this charge of criminal 

mischief. 

Sinclair’s counsel recommended probation and stated:
3

May it please the court, Your Honor, it’s difficult to argue 

history. . . . My client has two daughters, he’s seeking counsel to 

obtain their custody. He had gainful employment prior to the events 

that bring us here today. . . . [H]e’s taking the steps while in 

custody to address substance abuse issues, Judge. . . . [H]e’s very 

serious about straightening out. He’s expressed to me a genuine 

regret with regard to the coin machine that occurred I believe it was 

in Perry at Four Seasons Storage and Car wash where he was with 

another gentleman involved in that incident. Based on those 

factors I know the history, what the history is, and the county 

attorney is asking for what she is based on that. . . . [M]y client is 

willing to take the steps to rehabilitate himself. He can get back 

into society should he be released and so, therefore, we would ask 

for probation under the circumstances. 

The court adopted the State’s recommendation and stated:

In determining the sentence to be imposed against the defendant 

the court has taken into consideration the comments of [the State] 

as well as the comments of [defense counsel]. I have taken into 

consideration both recommendations. I think in order to provide 

maximum opportunity for rehabilitation of the defendant, and I 

appreciate what you feel you need to do on the outside in terms of 

[Sinclair’s] children and so on, that should have been taken into 

consideration before you put yourself in my hands as it were. I 

think you need more structure to straighten yourself out. According 

to the evaluation that you submitted not only do they believe you 

require long term residential treatment for your substance abuse 

issue, but they recommend you complete a mental health 

evaluation to assess possibility of a dual diagnosis issue, both 

mental as well as substance question. [I] believe you need more 

structure to do that. 

Sinclair contends the court’s explanation focused solely on the structure 

the court believed Sinclair needed to rehabilitate. However, a review of the 

sentencing transcript shows the court considered not only those factors it 

articulated in its own statement, but by reference it considered those factors 

discussed in counsels’ recommendations as well, including Sinclair’s criminal 

history, character, and ability to rehabilitate; the nature of the offense; and the 
4

attending circumstances. The court adequately stated on the record its reasons 

for selecting the particular sentence. The court did not abuse its discretion. 

AFFIRMED.