Supreme Court of Iowa· 3/22/2000

State v. Jacobs

Citations

607 N.W.2d 679
2000 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 47
2000 WL 339752

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a sentencing court must explain its reasons for imposing consecutive sentences
vacating sentences and remanding for resentencing where “the court did not provide reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences”
noting the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s “intricate transactions ... to cover up the thefts” weighed against a diminished responsibility defense and affirming the trial court’s rejection of that defense
noting the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant’s “intricate transactions . . . to cover up the thefts” weighed against a diminished responsibility defense and affirming the trial court’s rejection of that defense
noting district court “provided sufficient reasons to support its decision to impose a term of incarceration” but failed to “provide reasons for its decision to impose consecutive sentences”
vacating sentences where court failed to state reasons for imposing consecutive sentences

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cady, Convictions, Larson, Lavorato, Remanded, Resentencing, Sentences, Snell, Ternus, Vacated

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

155 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.