STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RONNIE O'NEAL SHIVERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-590 / 08-1664
Filed September 2, 2009
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
RONNIE O’NEAL SHIVERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Kurt L. Wilke,
Judge.
Defendant appeals his sentences for the crimes of possession of
marijuana (enhanced) and failure to affix a drug tax stamp. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kyle Hanson, Assistant Attorney
General, Timothy Schott, County Attorney, and Jennifer Bronzer, Assistant
County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Mansfield, J., and Zimmer, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
ZIMMER, S.J.
Ronnie Shivers appeals from the judgment and sentence entered
following a jury verdict finding him guilty of possession of marijuana, third
offense, in violation of Iowa Code sections 124.401(1)(d) and 124.411 (2007),
and failure to affix a drug tax stamp, in violation of sections 453B.3 and 453B.12.
He contends the district court failed to give adequate reasons for imposing
consecutive sentences. We affirm.
At the time the present offenses were committed on May 18, 2007,
Shivers was on already on probation for drug-related offenses he committed in
2006.1 While the present case was pending, Shivers’s probation was revoked,
and he was committed to prison for a term not to exceed twelve years. Shivers
was in prison serving that sentence when the sentencing hearing in the present
case was held.
At the sentencing hearing on September 19, 2008, the State asked that
concurrent five-year sentences be imposed on the present charges, but urged
the sentencing court to run Shivers’s sentences consecutive to the twelve-year
sentence he was already serving. The State cited Shivers’s extensive criminal
history and the fact that the new charges were committed while he was on
probation.
Shivers argued that since he was already serving a twelve-year
sentence, his sentences in this case should run concurrently with that sentence.
He argued that adding additional time to the twelve-year sentence would not aid
in his rehabilitation.
1
Shivers was convicted of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, failure to affix
a drug tax stamp, and impersonating a public official in 2006 and placed on probation.
His probation was revoked in December 2007.
3
After considering the arguments of counsel, the court ordered Shivers to
serve a term of imprisonment not to exceed five years on each charge, to be
served concurrently.
The court further ordered these sentences were to be
served consecutively to any sentences previously imposed.
The district court did not give any reasons for its sentence during the
sentencing hearing.
However, the written sentencing order filed immediately
after Shivers was sentenced stated, “Due to the Defendant’s lengthy criminal
record and his current incarceration on other charges, this Court concludes that
judgment should be imposed as hereinafter provided.” The written order then
provided that Shivers’s two five-year sentences would be served concurrently to
each other but consecutive to his earlier twelve-year sentence. Shivers appeals
from the sentences imposed by the court.
Our review of the district court’s sentencing decision is for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Laffey, 600 N.W.2d 57, 62 (Iowa 1999). Under Iowa Rule of
Criminal Procedure 2.23(3)(d), “[t]he court shall state on the record its reason for
selecting the particular sentence.” The district court must also give its reasons
for imposing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences.
State v.
Keopasaeuth, 645 N.W.2d 637, 641 (Iowa 2002). “Although the reasons do not
need to be detailed, they must be sufficient to allow appellate review of the
discretionary action.” State v. Evans, 671 N.W.2d 720, 727 (Iowa 2003) (citation
omitted).
Upon careful review of the record, we disagree with Shivers’s contention
that the district court failed to give reasons for running the sentences on the
current charges consecutive to the twelve-year sentence on the prior charge.
4
Shivers has an extensive criminal record which dates back to 1991.
At the
sentencing hearing, the State and Shivers agreed on all but one detail regarding
Shivers’s sentence.
Shivers’s attorney acknowledged that “[s]treet probation
doesn’t seem viable” and agreed with the State’s recommendation to run the two
five-year terms for his client’s present convictions concurrently.
The record reveals the only difference between the recommendations
from counsel for the State and Shiver’s counsel was whether Shivers’s two fiveyear terms would be served concurrently with or consecutively to his prior twelveyear sentence. The court’s statement of reasons in its written sentencing order,
though admittedly terse, indicates the court knew it had discretion to run
Shivers’s sentences concurrently with his prior offenses, but rejected that result
because of Shivers’s lengthy criminal history and the fact that his current
offenses were committed while he was already on probation for previous drugrelated offenses. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s sentencing order.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
