Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 26-0163 Filed October 21, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Sammi Jo Thurman, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Kristen Formanek, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Cathleen Siebrecht of Siebrecht Law Firm, Pleasant Hill, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Ahlers, P.J., and Chicchelly and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Langholz, J. 1 LANGHOLZ, Judge. On remand for a limited resentencing to address whether to impose a fine on Sammi Thurman’s conviction for child endangerment in violation of Iowa Code section 726.6(8) (2023), the district court decided to suspend the fine.1 The court said so on the record at the resentencing hearing and again in the written sentencing order. But the sentencing order also included a standard provision that “Defendant is ordered to pay any and all assessed restitution, fines, surcharges, and court costs.” Thurman now appeals again, arguing that she is entitled to a third sentencing because the order “is conflicting and ambiguous” as to whether the fine is suspended or imposed. But neither the court’s oral pronouncement nor the sentencing order’s provisions are conflicting or ambiguous. At the resentencing hearing, the court said Thurman’s “civil penalty will be converted to a fine” and that “since it’s an aggravated misdemeanor, I could have suspended the fine since she’s going to be in custody, so I’ll just go ahead and do that now.” The order likewise said Thurman’s “fine and 15% surcharge are suspended due to her incarceration.” Thurman contends that the court’s “use of boilerplate language requiring payment of ‘any and all’ fines undermines the Court’s specific suspension on the record of the fine and surcharge, creating uncertainty as to which provision controls.” But she overlooks that the allegedly conflicting provision orders payment of only “any and all assessed restitution, fines, surcharges, and court costs” (emphasis added). The sentencing order did not assess the fine. It suspended it. 1 In Thurman’s first appeal, we agreed with her and the State that the district court erred in imposing a fine in its written sentencing order because it failed to address the fine in its oral sentencing pronouncement. See State v. Thurman, No. 24-1782, 2025 WL 3023005, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2025). 2 So the two provisions in the sentencing order do not conflict with each other. Nor does either one conflict with the court’s oral suspension of the fine at the hearing. The district court suspended Thurman’s fine. Because Thurman’s only challenge to her resentencing fails, we affirm. AFFIRMED. 3