IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 3-1107 / 13-0464

Filed February 5, 2014

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTOINE LAMONT WORTHUM JR.

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Story County, Steven P. 

Van Marel, District Associate Judge. 

Defendant challenges the court’s sentencing order. AFFIRMED.

Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Melinda J. Nye, Assistant 

State Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Jean C. Pettinger, Assistant Attorney 

General, Stephen Holmes, County Attorney, and Adam Kenworthy, Student

Legal Intern, for appellee.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Tabor and Bower, JJ.
2

BOWER, J.

Antoine Worthum Jr. challenges the sentences imposed following his 

pleas of guilty to second-degree theft and assault causing bodily injury. Worthum 

argues the court relied on an improper sentencing factor and abused its 

discretion in failing to consider any mitigating factors. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

The State and Antoine Worthum Jr. reached a plea agreement on two 

Story County cases. Worthum entered a guilty plea in FECR45604 to seconddegree theft and in FECR48367 to assault causing bodily injury. There was no 

agreement regarding sentencing. 

A. Theft. In September 2010 an Ames, Iowa, home was burglarized. A

pawn store’s log identified Worthum as the person who pawned the stolen items. 

During the February 2013 plea colloquy, Worthum admitted having stolen 

property valued in excess of $1000 in his possession in September and October 

2010. He also admitted he intended to deprive the owner of that property. See

Iowa Code § 714.1(1), .2(2) (2009) (class “D” felony). 

The court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI 

recommended a five-year sentence, stating:

Department risk assessments indicate [Worthum] is at a high 

risk to reoffend. [Worthum] has demonstrated a pattern of 

criminality. [He] verbalized little remorse for the victim in the instant 

and pending [assault] case. He denied taking the . . . possessions 

but admitted to pawning them off. During the PSI interview 

[Worthum stated] he wishes to change his ways and become a 

better father to his children. [Worthum’s] criminal belief system 

underlies most, if not all, of his unlawful behavior. 

 
3

B. Assault. In December 2012 Worthum attended an after-party in a 

motel room. A gun was fired and during the ensuing disturbance, Worthum 

pulled a cigarette out of his mouth and burned the victim on the right side of her 

face. In his written plea, Worthum admitted “on or about December 2, 2012, I did 

commit an assault by burning [the victim] with a cigarette. This resulted in a 

bodily injury.” See Iowa Code § 708.1(1), .2(2) (2011) (serious misdemeanor).

C. Sentencing Hearing. At the March 2013 sentencing hearing, the 

State urged the court to impose a term of five years for the theft conviction and 

one year for the assault conviction and to run the sentences consecutively. 

Referencing the PSI, the State argued Worthum’s “interventions dealing with 

community services, probations, they just haven’t taken effect.” 

Defense counsel acknowledged Worthum “does not have a perfectly clean 

record. He does have interventions in his past. The situation that led to the 

assault was a heightened situation.” Counsel asked the court to order 

community services at a halfway house and to impose a deferred judgment or a 

suspended sentence and probation. 

Worthum addressed the court, accepted full responsibility, and requested 

a deferred judgment. 

The court sentenced Worthum to an indeterminate five-year term for the 

second-degree theft conviction. For the assault-causing-bodily-injury crime, the 

court imposed a one-year term. The court ordered the sentences to run 

consecutively. 

Worthum now appeals and seeks resentencing. 
4

II. Scope and Standards of Review

We review sentences for correction of errors at law. State v. Grandberry, 

619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000). When, as here, a sentence does not fall 

outside statutory limits, we will overturn the sentence only “for an abuse of 

discretion or the consideration of inappropriate factors.” State v. Formaro, 638 

N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). 

III. Discussion

A. Improper Factor. Worthum contends the district court relied on an 

improper sentencing factor. He argues the district court’s statement, “You 

probably changed the life of this victim forever,” is an improper sentencing 

consideration and shows the court’s reliance on an unproven fact.

Sentencing decisions are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor. 

Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d at 401. 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.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. A sentence will not 

be upset on appeal unless the defendant demonstrates there is no support for 

the decision in the evidence. State v. Valin, 724 N.W.2d 440, 445 (Iowa 2006). 

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated the sentences needed to make 

Worthum “understand how critically important it is that you make mature, 

responsible decisions.” The court explained its reasoning:

What the record shows is that up to this point in life you 

really haven’t done that. You have a long criminal history for 

somebody your age [twenty-five]. You’ve been to prison before on 

a theft-related offense. You’ve got some assault convictions. Now 

you’re back here in court again on those very same things. After 

having been put on probation, after having been in prison, after 
5

having various treatments and interventions, you are still 

committing criminal offenses. You are still committing serious 

criminal offenses. You simply cannot do that.

. . . I think what you have demonstrated pretty convincingly is 

that you are unable to live with the rest of us without committing 

serious criminal charges.

Mr. Worthum, I do not understand how more probation or 

another suspended sentence is going to do anything to rehabilitate 

you when they haven’t done that up to this point in time. You have 

to understand you did not have the right to assault someone. 

When you take that right away from someone, there are going to be 

serious consequences both to yourself and to the victim of this 

offense. You probably changed the life of this victim forever and 

you have to understand that. That’s a responsibility you now have 

to own and accept.

. . . Mr. Worthum, you cannot continue to victimize the 

people of your community without expecting to suffer some serious 

consequences.

. . . [B]ut I hope you’ll serve enough time in prison that when 

you get out this time you will decide this is not how I want to spend 

my life . . . . [You] are still a young man. You will still have plenty 

of time to go out and have some real success with your life if you 

start doing a better job with your decision making. That’s what this 

sentence is intended to do, to make you understand the 

consequences of poor decision-making and to put you in a position 

where you will start doing a much better job making those 

decisions. 

(Emphasis added.)

When we consider the challenged statement in context, we conclude it 

relates to the nature and severity of the assault Worthum committed. He 

assaulted the victim by using a lit cigarette to burn her face. The court was not 

commenting on an unproven fact but rather addressing the severe nature of 

Worthum’s assaultive act. It is not unreasonable for the court to try and 

communicate to Worthum the serious nature of his crimes and the profound 

effects an assault can have on a victim. We find no merit to this claim. 
6

B. Abuse of Discretion. Worthum also argues the district court abused 

its discretion in failing to consider any mitigating factors and in focusing on 

Worthum’s prior criminal record and the nature of the offense. 

A trial court’s explanation for selecting a particular sentence “does not 

need to be detailed” but must provide enough information “to permit review of the 

trial court’s discretionary action.” State v. Delaney, 526 N.W.2d 170, 178 (Iowa 

Ct. App. 1994). “The nature of the offense alone cannot be determinative of a 

discretionary sentence.” State v. Dvorsky, 322 N.W.2d 62, 67 (Iowa 1982). 

However, the district court enjoys the latitude to place greater importance on one 

sentencing consideration over others. State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 

(Iowa 1983). While a “sentencing court has a duty to consider all the 

circumstances of a particular case,” the court is not required “to specifically 

acknowledge each claim of mitigation argued by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 

542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). In determining whether the district court 

considered pertinent matters in imposing a particular sentence, we look to all 

parts of the record to find supporting reasons. State v. Jason, 779 N.W.2d 66, 76 

(Iowa Ct. App. 2009).

Here, the court considered a variety of relevant factors, such as age, 

character and propensities, the lack of a positive response to prior interventions, 

the nature of the offenses, and the similarity to prior offenses. The court found 

some factors to be more significant than others. See State v. Morrison, 323 

N.W.2d 254, 256 (Iowa 1982) (noting the “seriousness of the offense is an 

important sentencing consideration”). We conclude Worthum has failed to show 
7

the court exercised its discretion “on grounds which are clearly untenable or to an 

extent clearly unreasonable.” See Boltz, 542 N.W.2d at 11. Accordingly, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.