State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Santonio Duntae Burnett, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Santonio Burnett appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating while intoxicated—third or subsequent offense, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 321 J.2 (2024). Burnett's sole argument on appeal is that the sentencing court should not have considered his lack of remorse when imposing sentence.

Burnett pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970). The minutes establish he was stopped by police after running a stop sign and swerving. An officer saw multiple indicia of intoxication, but Burnett refused testing. After a first appeal and remand for resentencing, the district court conducted the sentencing hearing at issue here.

In allocution, Burnett said that he believed he had gotten sober and “done what [he] had to do to take the steps to move forward and making everything that [he] made wrong right.” The court's oral reasons for sentence referred to the facts of the offense, the parties’ recommendations, the presentence investigation report, and the need to balance Burnett's rehabilitation with public protection. In its written order, the court also cited “the defendant's lack of remorse through his allocution to the court.”

Burnett correctly concedes that lack of remorse is a proper sentencing consideration. See State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83, 88–89 (Iowa 2005). But he claims the record does not support that he lacked remorse. We disagree. The district court was in the best position to evaluate the sincerity of Burnett's allocution, and it concluded he lacked remorse. We discern no abuse of discretion. See State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355–56 (Iowa 2022) (affirming consideration of allocution as basis for finding lack of remorse).

AFFIRMED.

Opinion by Buller, J.