State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Orville Paul Hill, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Orville Hill appeals from the prison sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to domestic abuse assault—strangulation, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 708.2A(5) (2024), and domestic abuse assault causing bodily injury, a serious misdemeanor in violation of section 708.2A(2)(b) (2023). He asserts the sentencing court abused its discretion; we disagree and affirm.

In a handwritten section of the written plea documents, Hill admitted that he “chocked”¹ the victim on one occasion and “hit [her] in the face causing injury to her mouth” on another. The plea agreement was for open sentencing on these counts, and the State dismissed other charges. Between Hill's plea and sentencing, a report of violation documented that Hill “lied to [the probation officer] about his address since completing ․ inpatient treatment ․ [I]t was discovered that he is living with the victim [for] which there is an active no contact order.”

At sentencing, Hill stipulated to the violation set forth above. Hill's lawyer asked for suspended sentences, emphasizing Hill's substance-abuse history, his mental-health needs, and his desire to be in the community to support the child the victim was pregnant with at the time. In allocution to the court, Hill mentioned his drug use and said his crimes were his “full fault”—“I know I've done it a lot,” but “I know I can be successful on probation.” The State recommended consecutive prison terms based on Hill committing these crimes while on probation for other offenses, his dishonesty with the court and the probation officer, the protection of the victim and community, and Hill's “long criminal history”—the record indicating more than a dozen criminal convictions over two decades. The victim told the court she “want[ed] to give [Hill] a chance to be a part of this baby's life because he deserves it.”

Following a colloquy with Hill about his dishonesty with the probation officer, the sentencing court gave its reasons for sentencing Hill to prison:

THE COURT: Mr. Hill, I've had an opportunity to review your presentence investigation. I've had an opportunity to review the cases for which you have entered guilty pleas and your probation matters.

Mr. Hill, I've sentenced a lot of people this year, and you are one of a handful of individuals with whom rehabilitation is not my primary concern. Incapacitation is.

I don't believe for one second that probation is a viable sentence for you. The only question in my mind is whether your terms of incarceration shall run concurrent—or at the same time—or whether they need to be served consecutively.

The violation of pretrial release—and [the assistant county attorney] described it as lying. I think there's ample reason why she would. I'll call it you being less than candid.

Understanding the charges that you are facing, understanding the probation term that you were subject to, Mr. Hill, I think you've reached that point in your criminal career where every judge that you are in front of going forward will simply consider incapacitation as the appropriate punishment for you. And regrettably for you, Mr. Hill, that process for you starts today.

The court also explained it had expressly considered Hill's age, mental-health and substance-abuse issues, the nature of the offenses, and Hill's criminal history. The court denied the victim's request to dissolve the no-contact order.

“The test for whether a sentencing court abused its discretion is not whether we might have weighed the various factors differently. Our task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” State v. Gordon, 998 N.W.2d 859, 863 (Iowa 2023) (cleaned up). Hill asks us to do exactly that kind of second-guessing, as he urges us to weigh the sentencing factors differently. But the district court's explanation of its reasons speaks for itself—and that explanation is amply supported by the record. There was no abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We're pretty sure he meant “choked.” But that isn't really the right word. In the same sentence, Hill admits to “applying pressure to [the victim's] throat and causing pain and injury to her.” “Strangled” is the correct word for what Hill did—and what he pled guilty to. See Mary Pat Gunderson, Gender and the Language of Judicial Opinion Writing, 21 Geo. J. Gender & L. 1, 11 (2019) (on how language matters and describing acts of strangulation as “choking” can minimize or mitigate the perpetrator's actions).

Opinion by Buller, J.