IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 16

- 1152 Filed April 19, 2017

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.
LUCAS D. LANKFORD , Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Webster County, Thomas J. Bice , Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence s

. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith , State Appellate Defender, and Patricia A. Reynolds , Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven , Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Danilson, C.J., and Vogel and Vaitheswaran, JJ.2

VOGEL, Judge.
Lucas Lankford appeal s his sentence s following his guilty pleas to two counts of sexual abuse in the second degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 709.3(1)(b) and (2) (2015) ; one count of incest, in violation of Iowa Code section
726.2 ; and one count of sexual exploitation of a minor, in violation of Iowa Code section 728.12(1). Lankford claims the district court abused its discretion by failing to give proper consideration to factors other than the nature of the
offense s

. Following his guilty pleas, Lankford was sentence d to t wo twenty

- five

- year terms of imprisonment on the sexual abuse counts, with each carrying a seventy percent mandatory minimum; a five

- year term of imprisonment on the incest count; and a ten

- year term of imprisonment on the sexual exploitation count, all to run consecutively for a total term of incarceration of sixty

- five years with a mandatory minimum of thirty

- five years

. In pronouncing sentence, the district
court stated: Mr. Lankford, before I pass sentence, I want to reflect on this a moment. From my perspective, this is one of the most disgusting, repulsive, repugnant, most sickeni ng cases I have ever seen in my life. The ve ry nature of the crime warrants consecutive sentences from this c ourt’ s perspective, and that’ s wh y I’ m going to join in the plea agreement. You took advantage of your own daughter, who was a child , and I can only pray for her benefit that the harm a nd the scars that you have left emotionally and psychologically upon your own daughter heal and that she is able to move forw ard in her life in a meaningful, loving manner. Unbelievable. To take advantage of s uch innocence is unexplainable. Furthermore, and lastly, as the County Attorney alluded to, and this c ourt strongly agrees with, people like you cannot be in our communi ty. We need to protect our children from the likes of you. Disgusting. Sickening. It’ s going to take me a while to get over this case. If ever. And I think about your daughter and your family. I just hope you get some treatment. Get in some program ming. Move forward as best3
you can with your life. You’ ve got a long stretch ahead of you. Enough said. Following prompting from counsel regarding the consecutive sentences , the court
added: Well, I think I did; and I’ ll reinforce it. And given the repetitive course of conduct here and the exploitation of this minor daughter at such a tender age, this c ourt believes that consecutive sentences are appropriate. Furthermore, it is a part of the plea agreement to which the parties have agr eed and have made same a part of this formal record. When a sentence falls within statutory limits, the sentence is reviewed for
abuse of discretion. State v. Seats , 865 N.W.2d 545, 552 (Iowa 2015). A sentencing court abuses its discretion when the sen tencing decision is based on grounds that are clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Formaro , 638
N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002 ). In applying the abuse of discretion standard to sentencing decisions, it is important to consider the societal goals of s entencing criminal offenders, which focus on rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the c ommunity from further offenses. Iowa Code § 901.5 (2001)

. It is equally important to consider the host of factors that weigh in on the often arduous ta sk of sentencing a criminal offender, including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the age, character and propensity of the offender, and the chances of reform.
Id. at 724

– 25.
The record reflects the district court properly consider ed the relevant factors in fashioning Lankford’s sentence s

. The district court understandably placed particular emphasis on the nature of Lankford’ s offenses and how that
nature reflected on Lankford’s particular characteristics. The court also
discussed community safety concerns and Lankford’s prospects for treatment and rehabilitation in prison. We see nothing in the record that suggests the4

court’s decision was based on clearly untenable or unreasonable grounds. In addition, the sentence s entered were part of a plea agreement in which Lankford benefitted by avoiding federal prosecution for a related offense. Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Lankford

. Therefore, we affirm Lankford’s sentence s

. AFFIRMED.