State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Donald Lee Fields, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Donald Fields pleaded guilty to operating while intoxicated, third or subsequent offense. The district court sentenced him to pay a fine and serve an indeterminate prison term not to exceed five years. Fields appeals his sentence. He claims the district court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence rather than suspending the sentence and requiring him to attend an institutional substance abuse program or reside at a residential correctional facility as a term of probation.

We have jurisdiction over Fields's appeal despite his guilty plea because he has established good cause to appeal by challenging his sentence, which was neither mandatory nor agreed to as part of the parties’ plea agreement. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2025) (limiting when a defendant may appeal as a matter of right following a guilty plea); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). Because Fields's sentence was within statutory limits, it is presumed valid and will only be overturned for consideration of improper factors or an abuse of discretion. See Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 105–06.

Fields does not claim the district court considered improper factors. His challenge is based entirely on the claim that the district court abused its discretion by sending him to prison. Abuse of discretion occurs when the sentencing decision is based on grounds or reasons that are clearly untenable or unreasonable. Id. at 106. But Fields does not point to any grounds or reasons that the district court gave for the sentence that were untenable or unreasonable. Instead, his argument essentially asks us to second-guess the district court's decision and weigh the relevant factors the district court considered differently. But deciding what weight to give relevant factors is the district court's task, not ours. State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (“The right of an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence inheres in the discretionary standard.”). We find nothing untenable or unreasonable about the grounds or reasons the court gave for determining Fields's sentence, so the district court did not abuse its discretion. See id. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

AHLERS, Presiding Judge.