Opinion ID: 1349237
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sentencing Reasons.

Text: The same rule implicated in Lumadue's allocution argument calls upon the court to state on the record its reason for selecting the particular sentence. Iowa R.Crim. P. 22(3)(d) (emphasis added). The three-page transcript before us reveals no compliance with this rule. The State defends the omission on the ground the court signed a pre-printed Prison Order which included the following statement: The Court has determined that this sentence will provide reasonable protection of the public. Probation is denied because it is unwarranted. The question is whether the quoted boilerplate satisfies rule 22's on-the-record requirement. We hold that it does not. As the State rightly notes, this court has held that reasons given in a written judgment entry may be sufficient to permit appellate review of the court's discretionary action. State v. Johnson, 445 N.W.2d 337, 342-43 (Iowa 1989) (record for purposes of criminal appeal includes original documents filed in trial court, transcript and certified docket and court calendar entries). But in Johnson, where the dispute concerned concurrent or consecutive sentencing, the court personally advised the defendantas part of the sentencing colloquythat the offenses were separate and shall run consecutively. Id. at 343. The court thereafter elaborated on the reasons for the sentence in its judgment entry. We determined the sentencing colloquy, in combination with the written judgment entry, formed a sufficient basis for appellate review of the sentence for abuse of discretion. Id. at 343-44; see also State v. Garrow, 480 N.W.2d 256, 259-60 (Iowa 1992) (statement of reasons sufficient if it demonstrates exercise of discretion and reveals motive for a particular sentence imposed); State v. Matlock, 304 N.W.2d 226, 228 (Iowa 1981) (trial court should state reasons for sentence but error harmless because court lacked authority to enter less severe sentence). The record before us more closely resembles State v. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d 800 (Iowa Ct.App.1987). There the sentencing proceedings were not transcribed and the court's sentencing order offered only the following statement of reasons: The court has reviewed the circumstances of the offense, and the defendant's prior background. Cooper, 403 N.W.2d at 802. The court of appeals held that such vague and generalized considerations presumably inform every court's basic sentencing decision. Id. Missing was a rationale relating to this offense, and this defendant's background. Id. The court remanded for resentencing, convinced neither the defendant nor the system was well-served by a record requiring so much guesswork to review. Id.; see also State v. Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 1982) (statement reflecting only nature of offense insufficient to reveal exercise of discretion); State v. Freeman, 404 N.W.2d 188, 191 (Iowa Ct. App.1987) (mere statement that defendant does not qualify for probation insufficient under rule 22(3)(d)). We recognize the time pressures facing busy judges in a high-volume court. But defendants are not fungible commodities. They are entitled to be informed, preferably face-to-face, about the consequences of their criminal acts. Rule 22(3)(d) and our prior cases require as much. The integrity of our system of justice demands it. We affirm the judgment of the district court but remand for resentencing in compliance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED AND CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.