State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Steven Don Allison, Defendant–Appellant. (2026)

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Steven Allison pleaded guilty to an amended charge of theft in the second degree, a class “D” felony. The district court declined to follow a joint recommendation for probation. Instead, it ordered Allison to serve an indeterminate prison sentence not to exceed five years.

Allison appeals to challenge the sentence imposed.¹ He contends the court failed to consider mitigating factors and to properly weigh mitigating factors.² We address each claim in turn.

As to his claim that the court failed to consider the mitigating factors of his family and employment circumstances, we disagree for two reasons. First, in its stated reasons for the sentence, the court noted that it considered the information in the presentence investigation report (PSI), and the PSI included information about Allison's family and employment circumstances. So the court did consider the factors Allison claims it did not. Second, though the court has the duty to consider all relevant circumstances, it is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). So, we reject Allison's challenge based on the claim that the court failed to consider mitigating factors.

We also reject Allison's claim that the court abused its discretion by failing to properly weigh mitigating factors. Allison's argument is based on a misunderstanding of our role in reviewing the sentence. On appeal, the test is not whether we may have weighed various sentencing factors differently. State v. Gordon, 998 N.W.2d 859, 863 (Iowa 2023). Nor is our role to second guess the district court's sentencing decision. Id. Rather, our role is to determine whether the sentencing decision was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds. Id. Having reviewed the record, we find no evidence that Allison's sentence was based on grounds that were unreasonable or untenable. See id. As such, we find no abuse of discretion.

Having rejected Allison's challenges to the sentence imposed, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because Allison challenges a sentence that was neither mandatory nor agreed to as part of the plea agreement, he has established good cause to appeal despite his guilty plea, so we have jurisdiction to hear his appeal. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2025); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020).

2.   Allison's appellate brief makes passing reference to several other possible issues. If Allison intended to raise any issues other than those we have identified, we consider them forfeited for failing to clearly identify them, failing to make an argument in support of them, failing to make more than a perfunctory argument in support of them, or failing to cite any authority in support of them. See State v. Jackson, 4 N.W.3d 298, 311 (Iowa 2024) (listing ways a party forfeits an issue on appeal).

Opinion by Ahlers, J.