State of Iowa v. Sara Lynn Krausman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0295
Filed February 11, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Sara Lynn Krausman,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County,
The Honorable Robert J. Richter, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Webb L. Wassmer of Wassmer Law Office, PLC, Marion, attorney for
appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
Opinion by Schumacher, J.

1
SCHUMACHER, Judge.

Sara Krausman appeals the sentences imposed by the district court
following a global plea agreement. She asserts the district court failed to
indicate whether her sentences would run concurrently or consecutively and
only indicated that in the event her probation was revoked, the sentences for
certain counts would run consecutively. Based on those arguments,
Krausman argues her sentences were illegal and that her sentences should be
presumed to run concurrently. Upon our review, we affirm the district court.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings

A law enforcement officer conducted a traffic stop on Krausman’s
vehicle after observing her weaving between lanes and failing to fully stop at
a stop sign. The officer noticed a smell of alcohol emanating from
Krausman’s breath and that Krausman was sweating profusely. Krausman
failed a field sobriety test but blew under the legal limit on a breathalyzer. A
K9 unit alerted to narcotics inside Krausman’s vehicle, where law
enforcement found marijuana, two pipes, a THC wax pen, two vials, a baggie
that contained methamphetamine, used syringes, and a pill bottle with six
different prescription medications.

Following her arrest, Krausman eventually entered a global plea
agreement that resolved multiple cases pending against her. In
OWCR151901, Krausman pled guilty to operating while intoxicated, second
offense, and one count of possession of a controlled substance, marijuana,
second offense. In OWCR150941, Krausman pled guilty to operating while
intoxicated, third offense; one count of possession of a controlled substance,
methamphetamine; and person ineligible to carry dangerous weapons. In
SMCR158280, Krausman pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of

2
interference with official acts.1 As part of the plea, the State agreed to dismiss
thirteen additional charges.

The plea agreement recommended suspended consecutive sentences.
The district court agreed to adopt the plea agreement with two exceptions:
I just can’t get behind the 30 days only on the [operating while
intoxicated] third. That’s going to be 120 days in jail. I can’t get behind just
the fine on the interference. That’s going to be 30 days. So—and those will
be consecutive to each other. So 120 plus 30 gives you 150 in jail. But then
everything else—all of the other suspended time consecutive if revoked,
the fines, one year max benefits at the facility after you get done with the
150—I’m going along with all of that.

Krausman now appeals, arguing that the district court did not specify
the consecutive or concurrent nature of the sentences, so her sentence is
illegal, and her sentences should be presumed to run concurrently.

II. Standard of Review

We review challenges to a defendant’s sentence for correction of errors
at law. State v. Duffield, 16 N.W.3d 298, 302 (Iowa 2025).
Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong
presumption in their favor. We will not reverse a sentence unless there is
an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure. A
district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion on
grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.

Id. (cleaned up).

1
Krausman appealed her sentence for this misdemeanor conviction. Our supreme
court treated such as an application for discretionary review and denied the same.

3
III. Analysis

Krausman argues that the imposition of consecutive sentences based
on a contingent probation revocation is an illegal sentence because the district
court failed to specify whether her sentences were to be served consecutively
or concurrently. She relies on State v. Cole in asserting that after a probation
revocation, the district court is not allowed to impose a greater sentence than
was originally imposed or one that was not specified. See 23 N.W.3d 231, 242
(Iowa 2025). This assertion is correct. As the court noted in Cole, “If the
court elects to revoke probation, section 908.11(4) permits the court to
ʻrequire the defendant to serve the sentence imposed or any lesser
sentence.’” Id. (quoting Iowa Code § 908.11(4) (2023)). There, the court
remanded the case because the sentencing court’s oral pronouncement and
its written order were inconsistent on the issue of imposing concurrent or
consecutive sentences. Id. at 242–43.

But Krausman’s situation is distinguishable from Cole. In sentencing
Krausman, the district court’s written orders in both OWCR150941 and
OWCR151091 accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement: “However,
if ever revoked, OWCR450941 and OWCR151901 shall run consecutive to
each other for a total of 10 years.” So there is no discrepancy between the oral
pronouncement and the written orders, which shows that if revocation does
occur, the district court, at maximum, could impose consecutive sentences.
The consecutive nature of the sentences is also reflected in the plea
agreement. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Krausman’s assertion that

4
the district court did not specify whether the sentences were consecutive or
concurrent. We conclude the imposed sentence was not illegal.2

IV. Conclusion

Because the district court properly pronounced consecutive sentences
orally and in its sentencing orders and we reject the assertion that the
sentence is illegal, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

2
Because we conclude the district court specified the consecutive nature of the
sentences, we do not reach Krausman’s argument concerning the presumption of
concurrent sentencing.

5