IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1639

Filed November 8, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

DANIEL TODD LITTLE,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge.

Daniel Little appeals the sentence imposed by the district court after he pled 

guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse, possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to deliver, indecent contact with a child, and 

prohibited person in possession of ammunition. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg, 

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Martha E. Trout, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and Carr, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 

(2023).
2

CARR, Senior Judge.

Daniel Little and the State entered into a plea agreement in which Little 

would plead guilty to three counts of second-degree sexual abuse, possession of 

methamphetamine with intent to deliver, indecent contact with a child, and 

prohibited person in possession of ammunition. Little determined it was in his “best 

interest under these circumstances to accept responsibility for the acts” and “argue 

for any legal sentence, potentially running all counts concurrent if the Court chose 

to do so,” while “[t]he State [was] free to argue for consecutive sentences.” 

At sentencing, the defense noted Little “was using a lot of different types of 

drugs and using them often” and “there’s a lot of things going on here with him that 

involves his mental health,” but “[t]hose are things [he] is committed to trying to 

figure out while incarcerated.” Little added, “Now that I’ve had the chance to be 

sober and I’ve learned the mistakes I’ve made, I’ve taken responsibility for the 

choices and the things that I’ve done.” Little requested “the opportunity and show 

me the forgiveness that the others have and allow me to get the treatment and the 

help that I need.” As “recognition of [Little’s] acceptance of responsibility,” the 

State recommended the court run two of the sexual-abuse sentences consecutive 

with each other and the other sentences concurrent, for a total sentence of fifty 

years of incarceration with a mandatory thirty-five years before eligibility for parole. 

The district court considered relevant factors of Little’s age, employment 

circumstances, family circumstances, criminal history, statements to the court, 

circumstances of the crimes, chances for rehabilitation, and the need to protect the 

community from further offenses. The court further stated: 
3

All right. So the Court’s had an opportunity to review the 

presentence investigation. The Court has indeed reviewed the 

minutes of testimony, which were used in support of the defendant’s 

guilty pleas. The Court has heard from Mr. Little himself. The Court 

has heard the argument of counsel. And the Court has heard from 

the victim’s mother in this case. 

After doing all of those things, Mr. Little, you should 

understand that I believe that justice should always be tempered with 

mercy, and you’re asking for mercy from the Court. I’m a firm 

believer of that. However, Mr. Little, I also believe society’s highest 

obligation above all else is protecting its children.

While I fully understand you’ve pled guilty to the counts you’ve

pled guilty to, I agree with [the State] that it would be inappropriate 

for me to consider your federal charges. Therefore, I will not consider 

your federal charges or potential exposure in federal court.

What [the victim’s mother] detailed in her victim impact

statement was more than just the impact on the victim. She detailed 

the impact on her, her son, and not just in 2021 or 2022, but what 

that impact looks like potentially 5 or 10 or even 15 years down the 

road. So the crimes that you committed have a ripple effect, and the 

damage done very well may be irreparable.

Mr. Little, I certainly understand that this disposition is not 

something that you wanted, but I believe it is the disposition that 

justice truly requires. I will commit you to the custody of the Director 

of the Department of Corrections for a term not to exceed 25 years 

for Count I, 25 years for Count II, 25 years for Count III, 25 years for 

Count IV, 2 years for Count V, and 5 years for Count VI. But for the 

fact that the State has chosen to limit its recommendations to 50 

years, Mr. Little, given the facts of this case, given your criminal 

history, I would have run every single one of these terms consecutive 

to each other.

Given the State’s recommendations, Counts I and III shall be 

served consecutive to each other, but concurrent on the remaining 

counts in the trial information, which shall be served concurrent with 

each other as well, for a total term of incarceration not to exceed 50 

years. Mandatory minimum is 70 percent to be served on the 

consecutive terms pursuant to Iowa Code Section 902.12.

On appeal,1 Little claims the court abused its discretion by “not adequately 

consider the mitigating circumstances,” including “that [he] had been a substance 

1 Because Little appeals his sentence, he has established good cause to appeal. 

State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). 
4

abuser for most of his life and was a daily methamphetamine user prior to his 

arrest” and “had mental health problems prior to the crimes.” 

We review sentencing rulings for correction of errors at law. Damme, 944 

N.W.2d at 103. “[T]he decision of the district court to impose a particular sentence 

within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will 

only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate 

matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). While the court 

must “consider all the circumstances of a particular case . . . , 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) (internal citation omitted). Indeed, 

“the failure to acknowledge a particular sentencing circumstance does not 

necessarily mean it was not considered.” Id. “Instead, we review a sentence for 

an abuse of discretion based on the entire record, and look to see if the reasons 

articulated by the trial court are sufficient to enable us to determine if an abuse of 

discretion occurred.” Id. Here, the court noted it had considered the presentence 

investigation report, defense counsel’s statements, Little’s statements, and the 

statements of the victims’ mother—all of which referenced either Little’s substance 

abuse, mental health, or both. On our review, we find the district court did not 

abuse its discretion “on grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or 

unreasonable” in imposing Little’s sentence. See Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 724. 

We therefore affirm.

AFFIRMED.