Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G. Blane II (trial) and Glenn E. Pille (sentencing), Judges.
Defendant appeals the court's sentencing order.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Steven Foritano, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Potterfield, P.J., and Mullins and Bower, JJ.
Lewis Edward Madison Jr. appeals the district court's imposition of consecutive sentences. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Sixty-four-year-old Madison was friends with the father of thirteen-year-old M.H. In December 2010 and January 2011, after M.H.'s father drank to the point of passing out, Madison had sexual relations with M.H. on separate occasions several weeks apart.
The State charged Madison with four counts of sexual abuse in the third degree. See Iowa Code § 709.4(2)(b) (2011) ("The other person is . . . thirteen years of age, "). The State also alleged Madison would be subject to sentencing enhancements due to a prior conviction for a sexually predatory offense. Prior to trial, the State and Madison agreed that if he submitted to a bench trial on a stipulated record, the State would drop the fourth count and the sentencing enhancements. Pursuant to the agreement, a contested bench trial occurred in October 2012.
In November 2012 the court found Madison "did perform three separate sex acts on M.H." and found him guilty on all three counts. The court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI). The completed PSI noted Madison's prior conviction for third-degree sexual abuse of "a thirteen-year-old female." The PSI recommended incarceration but did not address consecutive or concurrent sentences.
At the sentencing hearing, the State urged the court to impose consecutive sentences, and defense counsel argued the court should impose concurrent sentences. The court ordered the three sentences to "run consecutive to each other for a total term not to exceed thirty years." This appeal followed.
II. Scope and Standards of Review.
We review sentences for correction of errors at law. State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). When, as here, a sentence does not fall outside statutory limits, we will overturn the sentence only "for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate factors." State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Sentencing decisions are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d at 401. Our "task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds." Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. A sentence will not be upset ...