State of Iowa, Appellee v. Donald James Hill, Appellant

Summary

The court held that a statutory presumption favoring consecutive sentences does not eliminate the sentencing court’s duty to explain why it chose a consecutive term. Because the district court’s generalized reasons did not permit meaningful review of that separate discretionary choice, the court vacated the appellate decision and sentencing order and remanded for resentencing. Justice Appel, joined by Justice Wiggins, specially concurred to emphasize that consecutive-sentence decisions require reasoned judgment rather than boilerplate.