from the Iowa District Court for Lee (South) County, Mark E.
Kruse and John M. Wright, Judges.
defendant appeals her sentence.
C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Brenda J. Gohr,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sheryl A. Soich, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Doyle and Bower, JJ.
Laktas appeals her sentence following her guilty plea to
second-degree theft, in violation of Iowa Code sections 714.1
and 714.2(2) (2016). Laktas claims the district court abused
its discretion by focusing only on Laktas's prior
criminal record, and it did not consider mitigating factors
such as her employment history and status as her father's
her guilty plea, Laktas was sentenced to five years of
imprisonment and a $750 fine with a surcharge. The district
court suspended the fine and surcharge. In pronouncing the
sentence, the district court stated:
The Court has considered all the sentencing provisions
provided in Iowa Code Chapters 901 and 902. The following
sentence is based upon my judgment of what will provide the
maximum opportunity for your rehabilitation and at the same
time protect the community from further offenses by you and
The Court has specifically considered all the arguments made
here today, all the contents of the presentence
investigation. There are a number of attachments, including
letters by family members and so forth, which the Court has
also considered and read in this case.
. . .
In reaching this sentence, ma'am, I've taken into
account your prior criminal record, which, as indicated,
obviously is not good. You've had the benefit of
probation, you've had the benefit of various services
while on probation, you've had the benefit of parole.
You've been incarcerated before. This is a situation
where multiple-the last of multiple felony convictions. And,
again, I'm a little bit taken aback by the Department of
Correctional Services' recommendation with a-on the risk
assessment when the same thing keeps happening over and over
and over again and then come up with a conclusion that
it's not a risk, which, again, does not make sense.
The other thing for the presentence investigation, it
appeared-I mean you just got off parole or probation within a
very short time. You're back at it again with this
offense, which didn't occur once, not a one-time thing,
but multiple offenses occurring over a long period of time
when you were put in a position of trust in this case.
So that's the reasons for the sentencing and, again,
I've taken into account everything else that was said
here today. You know, you can't say, well, I've done
this and this since I was arrested on this charge and that
makes-you know, and that should determine what happens here
today. This has happened before multiple times and I'm
sure the same thing has happened before. So ...