Opinion ID: 2015330
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Review/Preservation of Error.

Text: Our review is for the correction of errors at law. State v. Thomas, 547 N.W.2d 223, 225 (Iowa 1996). Because the challenged sentence does not fall outside statutory limits, we review the court's decision for abuse of discretion. Id. Reversal on this ground is warranted only if the court's discretion has been exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable. Id. The State devotes much of its brief to a claim that defendant has failed to preserve error. It insists Cooley should have alerted the trial court to the choice error now assigned on appeal. We disagree. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that a sentencing error occurred, we believe redress in this court is entirely appropriate. It strikes us as exceedingly unfair to urge that a defendant, on the threshold of being sentenced, must question the court's exercise of discretion or forever waive the right to assign the error on appeal. As our court of appeals noted in a similar situation, it would be incongruous to apply ordinary preservation-of-error principles in this context. State v. Thomas, 520 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa App. 1994); see also State v. Young, 292 N.W.2d 432, 435 (Iowa 1980) (rejecting State's claim that sentencing error must be raised by motion before the district court); State v. Marti, 290 N.W.2d 570, 589 (Iowa 1980) (rejecting State's claim that defendant failed to preserve error by not alerting court to its failure to state reasons for sentence). We thus turn to the merits of Cooley's appeal.