Opinion ID: 1309290
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Sufficiency of Explanation of Sentence Imposed.

Text: Finally, we consider defendant's contention that in pronouncing sentence the district court failed to state sufficient reasons for imposing consecutive sentences as required by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(3)(d). In imposing consecutive sentences, the judge stated: [The jury's verdict] leaves little problem for me to make a determination of what needs to be done in these particular instances. The facts were voluminous enough to support the conviction in both instances, in my opinion. So without further commentary about your background or your role that you played in this killing, it is the judgment and sentence of the court on count I where the jury found you guilty of murder in the first degree, that you be sentenced to the penitentiary for the rest of your natural life. [O]n count II where you were convicted of an attempt to commit murder of the second victim, you will be sentenced to not more than twenty-five years in the penitentiary.... [T]hese sentences will be consecutive. Without question, this statement of reasons for imposing consecutive sentences was extremely terse. Such brevity of statement, however, does not necessarily handicap our review of the sentencing discretion. See, e.g., State v. Victor, 310 N.W.2d 201, 205 (Iowa 1981). It is reasonably clear from what was said that the judge imposed consecutive sentences based on his perception of the aggregate culpability of two separate and distinct heinous offenses. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of conviction and the sentences imposed should be affirmed. DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS AND JUDGMENT OF THE DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.