IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-0108
Filed June 10, 2015
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ADAM SCOTT LEIVA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, James C.
Ellefson, Judge.
The defendant appeals his consecutive sentences. AFFIRMED.
Beau A. Bergmann of Bergmann Law Firm, P.L.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik and Kelli Huser,
Assistant Attorneys General, Jennifer Miller, County Attorney, and Benjamin J.
Stansberry, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Bower and McDonald, JJ.
2
MCDONALD, J.
Adam Leiva pleaded guilty to two counts of assault while participating in a
felony, in violation of Iowa Code sections 708.1 and 708.3 (2013), forcible
felonies, and was sentenced to five years’ incarceration for each offense, said
sentences to be served consecutive to each other. On appeal, he contends the
district court failed to “properly consider all reasonable factors” in imposing
sentence, which we interpret to mean the district court should have placed
greater weight on the mitigating factors.
We review the district court’s sentencing decision for correction of errors
at law. See State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). A sentence
within statutory limits “is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will
only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of
inappropriate matters.” Id. An abuse of discretion is only found if “the decision
was exercised on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or
unreasonable.” Id. “In exercising its discretion, the district court is to weigh all
pertinent matters in determining a proper sentence, including the nature of the
offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant’s age, character, and
propensities or chances for reform.” State v. Johnson, 513 N.W.2d 717, 719
(Iowa 1994). Although “[a] sentencing court has a duty to consider all the
circumstances of a particular case,” it is not “required to specifically acknowledge
each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11
(Iowa Ct. App. 1995). “Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge a particular
sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered.” Id.
3
Here, the sentencing court considered the information contained in the
presentence investigation report and discussed its reasons for imposition of
consecutive sentences, including the defendant’s prior adult criminal history and
the nature of the instant offenses. The district court did not consider any
improper sentencing considerations. We cannot conclude the district court
abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. The sentences are
affirmed without further opinion. See State v. Ramirez, 400 N.W.2d 586, 590
(Iowa 1987) (affirming sentence where the record demonstrated the court
considered more than one permissible sentencing consideration); see also Iowa
Ct. R. 21.26(1)(a), (c), and (e).
AFFIRMED.