IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-0406
Filed January 25, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
AUSTIN LEE MURRAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Timothy J. Finn,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentence. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia Reynolds, Assistant
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Kristin Guddall (until withdrawal)
and Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Presiding Judge.
Austin Murray appeals his sentence following his guilty plea to lascivious
acts with a child, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.8(1) (2015). Murray
claims the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him without giving
proper consideration to his individual characteristics.
On August 25, 2015, the State charged Murray with two counts of sexual
abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.1 and
709.3(1)(b). On January 4, 2016, following the filing of an amended trial
information, Murray pled guilty to one count of lascivious acts with a child. As
part of the plea agreement, the State and Murray agreed to a joint
recommendation of a term of imprisonment not to exceed ten years. At
sentencing, the district court stated it had considered the evidence, Murray’s
background, including Murray’s report that he had been a victim of sexual assault
as a child, and the nature of the offense. The court also noted in its written order
it had examined the presentence investigation report and the exhibits presented
by Murray at the sentencing hearing. Ultimately, the court agreed with the joint
recommendation of the parties and sentenced Murray to a term of imprisonment
not to exceed ten years.
When a sentence falls within statutory limits, we review it for an abuse of
discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). In pronouncing
sentence, courts should receive and examine all pertinent information and
exercise its discretion to craft a sentence that “provide[s] maximum opportunity
for the rehabilitation of the defendant, and for the protection of the community
from further offenses by the defendant and others.” Iowa Code § 901.5. In
3
exercising its discretion, the court “should weigh and consider all pertinent
matters in determining proper sentence, including the nature of the offense, the
attending circumstances, defendant’s age, character and propensities and
chances of his reform.” State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740, 744 (Iowa 1999)
(citations omitted).
The record reflects the district court properly exercised its discretion in
sentencing Murray. While it did not provide an exhaustive analysis of the factors
it considered in pronouncing sentence, the court outlined appropriate factors in
its oral pronouncement and its written order. Additionally, the court received and
examined all pertinent information submitted by the parties into the record to aid
in its application of the factors. Further, the court’s discussion of the record
indicates it was familiar with the individual circumstances of Murray’s case and
relied on those circumstances, along with the joint recommendation of the
parties, in sentencing Murray. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not
abuse its discretion.
Therefore, we affirm Murray’s sentence.
AFFIRMED.