State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Mathew Rohan Boon, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Mathew Rohan Boon appeals the sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of criminal mischief in the second degree. On appeal, he argues the district court abused its discretion in imposing a five-year sentence instead of a suspended sentence and probation. Upon our review, we affirm Boon's sentence.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

On March 23, 2025, Boon was renting a room at the Quality Inn and Suites in Fort Madison. During his stay, Boon damaged the sprinkler system in his room, which caused extensive damage to the hotel. Boon also damaged a laptop that belonged to his father.

Boon was charged by a two-count trial information. Count I charged Boon with criminal mischief in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1, 716.3(1)(a), and 716.3(2) (2025). Count II charged Boon with criminal mischief in the fourth degree, in violation of Iowa Code sections 716.1, 716.6(1)(a)(1), and 716.6(1)(b). Boon later entered a plea agreement with the State where he agreed to plead guilty under count I to the lesser included offense of criminal mischief in the second degree, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 716.4. In exchange, the State dismissed count II of the trial information, and the parties jointly recommended a five-year suspended sentence and probation.

At sentencing, the district court sentenced Boon to a prison term not to exceed five years. Among other factors, the district court considered Boon's age, prior criminal record, prior opportunity to be under probation, and his employment record. After considering these factors the district court explained: “I am going to impose a five-year prison sentence. I see nothing that would suggest that you would succeed on probation. You have a lot of opportunities of probation, and you just haven't succeeded. And I see nothing here that would convince me that you would succeed.”

Boon now appeals.

DISCUSSION

“When a sentence imposed by a district court falls within the statutory parameters, we presume it is valid and only overturn for an abuse of discretion or reliance on inappropriate factors.” State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 554 (Iowa 2015).

When considering if probation is appropriate at sentencing, the district court shall determine what “will provide maximum opportunity for the rehabilitation of the defendant and protection of the community from further offenses by the defendant and others.” Iowa Code § 907.5. Boon argues that because of his prior history, age, maturity level, and employment history, a prison sentence is not warranted. See id. (providing the various factors the district court shall consider, including the defendant's age, prior record, and employment circumstances). As noted above, the district court considered these factors and concluded that Boon's prior opportunities with probation warrant a prison sentence. By doing so, the district court did not abuse its discretion. State v. Gordon, 998 N.W.2d 859, 863 (Iowa 2023) (“The test for whether a sentencing court abused its discretion is not whether we might have weighed the various factors differently.”).

Boon contends that probation will allow him to address his mental-health and substance-use issues, whereas a prison sentence will not. “It is not our role to decide whether probation is better than prison.” State v. Carlson, No. 19-2113, 2021 WL 210702, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 21, 2021). While Boon may believe that a suspended sentence and probation are proper, “mere disagreement with the sentence imposed by the district court does not amount to an abuse of discretion.” State v. Langrine, No. 25-0041, 2025 WL 2658368, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sep. 17, 2025).

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Chicchelly, J.