State of Iowa, Appellee v. Shaunta Rose Hopkins, Appellant

Summary

The court affirmed Hopkins's resentencing on the five convictions that remained after one conviction was reversed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing concurrent terms that were otherwise identical to the original sentence. The court concluded that the sentencing judge considered the reduced number of convictions, Hopkins's rehabilitation, age, criminal history, and the seriousness and multiplicity of the remaining offenses. The court declined to decide Hopkins's ineffective-assistance claim on direct appeal because the record was inadequate to determine whether counsel's failure to request an updated presentence investigation report was deficient or prejudicial.