IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 15-0688
Filed October 12, 2016
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
GAGE SKYLAR JURSKI,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, Thomas G. Reidel,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence. AFFIRMED.
Courtney T. Wilson of Gomez May LLP, Davenport, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kelli A. Huser, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Vaitheswaran and McDonald, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Gage Jurski appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to stalking in
violation of a protective order, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.11(3)(b)
(2013). Jurski claims the district court abused its discretion by considering
charges that were pending against him in determining the appropriate sentence.
Following his guilty plea, Jurski was sentenced to a maximum of five years
imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court noted Jurski’s criminal history,
employment history, the seriousness of the crime to which Jurski pled guilty,
Jurski’s potential for rehabilitation, and community safety concerns in determining
imprisonment was appropriate. The district court also stated: “I’ve not given any
consideration to any entries in the criminal history section of that report that do
not show an admission or adjudication of guilt.” When the State mentioned
Jurski’s pending charges, the district court responded: “Well, I don’t think I can
consider the pending.”
When a sentence falls within statutory limits, the sentence is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). “A
district court may not consider an unproven or unprosecuted offense when
sentencing a defendant unless (1) the facts before the court show the defendant
committed the offense, or (2) the defendant admits it.” State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d
38, 41 (Iowa 2001). The record reflects the district court did not consider the
unproven, pending charges against Jurski. The district court stated it did not
consider the charges and rebuffed the State’s mention of the charges. We see
no basis in the record to doubt the district court’s explicit statement. Accordingly,
we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Jurski.
3
Therefore, we affirm Jurski’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.