IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16-1152
Filed April 19, 2017
STATE OF IOWA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
LUCAS D. LANKFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentences. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Patricia A. Reynolds,
Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellee.
Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.
2
VOGEL, Judge.
Lucas Lankford appeals his sentences following his guilty pleas to two
counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code section
709.3(1)(b) and (2) (2015); one count of incest, in violation of Iowa Code section
726.2; and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of Iowa Code
section 728.12(1). Lankford claims the district court abused its discretion by
failing to give proper consideration to factors other than the nature of the
offenses.
Following his guilty pleas, Lankford was sentenced to two twenty-five-year
terms of imprisonment on the sexual abuse counts, with each carrying a seventy
percent mandatory minimum; a five-year term of imprisonment on the incest
count; and a ten-year term of imprisonment on the sexual exploitation count, all
to run consecutively for a total term of incarceration of sixty-five years with a
mandatory minimum of thirty-five years. In pronouncing sentence, the district
court stated:
Mr. Lankford, before I pass sentence, I want to reflect on this a
moment. From my perspective, this is one of the most disgusting,
repulsive, repugnant, most sickening cases I have ever seen in my
life. The very nature of the crime warrants consecutive sentences
from this court’s perspective, and that’s why I’m going to join in the
plea agreement. You took advantage of your own daughter, who
was a child, and I can only pray for her benefit that the harm and
the scars that you have left emotionally and psychologically upon
your own daughter heal and that she is able to move forward in her
life in a meaningful, loving manner. Unbelievable. To take
advantage of such innocence is unexplainable. Furthermore, and
lastly, as the County Attorney alluded to, and this court strongly
agrees with, people like you cannot be in our community. We need
to protect our children from the likes of you. Disgusting. Sickening.
It’s going to take me a while to get over this case. If ever. And I
think about your daughter and your family. I just hope you get
some treatment. Get in some programming. Move forward as best
3
you can with your life. You’ve got a long stretch ahead of you.
Enough said.
Following prompting from counsel regarding the consecutive sentences, the court
added:
Well, I think I did; and I’ll reinforce it. And given the repetitive
course of conduct here and the exploitation of this minor daughter
at such a tender age, this court believes that consecutive
sentences are appropriate. Furthermore, it is a part of the plea
agreement to which the parties have agreed and have made same
a part of this formal record.
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
sentencing court abuses its discretion when the sentencing decision is based on
grounds that are clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Formaro, 638
N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002).
In applying the abuse of discretion standard to sentencing
decisions, it is important to consider the societal goals of
sentencing criminal offenders, which focus on rehabilitation of the
offender and the protection of the community from further offenses.
Iowa Code § 901.5 (2001). It is equally important to consider the
host of factors that weigh in on the often arduous task of sentencing
a criminal offender, including the nature of the offense, the
attending circumstances, the age, character and propensity of the
offender, and the chances of reform.
Id. at 724–25.
The record reflects the district court properly considered the relevant
factors in fashioning Lankford’s sentences. The district court understandably
placed particular emphasis on the nature of Lankford’s offenses and how that
nature reflected on Lankford’s particular characteristics. The court also
discussed community safety concerns and Lankford’s prospects for treatment
and rehabilitation in prison. We see nothing in the record that suggests the
4
court’s decision was based on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds. In
addition, the sentences entered were part of a plea agreement in which Lankford
benefitted by avoiding federal prosecution for a related offense. Accordingly, we
conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lankford.
Therefore, we affirm Lankford’s sentences.
AFFIRMED.
State of Iowa v. Lucas D. Lankford
Combined Opinion