IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 19-0523

Filed August 5, 2020

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

PERRY DEXTER NELSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Mark T. Hostager, 

District Associate Judge.

The defendant appeals his sentences asserting the court failed to consider 

minimum essential sentencing factors. AFFIRMED.

Sharon D. Hallstoos of Hallstoos Law Office, Dubuque, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Genevieve Reinkoester, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., Greer, J., and Blane, S.J.*

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

(2020).
2

BLANE, Senior Judge.

On appeal, Perry Dexter Nelson contends that when imposing sentence,

the court failed to consider minimum essential sentencing factors. Based upon our 

review, we find the trial judge considered the necessary requirements regarding 

sentencing and affirm.

I. Procedural and factual background.

A jury found Nelson guilty of two counts of assault on a peace officer; one 

count of assault causing bodily injury; and one count of public intoxication as a 

third or subsequent offense; as well as two misdemeanor counts of interference 

with official acts and disorderly conduct. Based upon these convictions, Nelson 

was also subject to probation revocation of four prior sentences. Following the 

guilty verdicts, the court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI) to be 

prepared by the department of correctional services (DCS). Before sentencing, 

Nelson filed a “Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum,” in which he agreed with 

the information contained in the PSI and also listed aggravating and mitigating 

factors for the court’s consideration.

The court sentenced Nelson to two year indeterminate terms on each 

probation revocation to run concurrently for a total of eight years. The court also 

sentenced Nelson to incarceration on the four convictions in the present case, 

each individual sentence run concurrently, for a total of 540 days. The court ran 

this term of incarceration concurrent to the eight years on the probation violations. 

Nelson appeals. 
3

II. Scope and standards of review.

We review sentences that are within the statutory limits for an abuse of 

discretion. State v. Roby, 897 N.W.2d 127, 138 (Iowa 2017). A sentence will not 

be upset on appellate review unless the defendant demonstrates an abuse of trial 

court discretion or a defect in the sentencing procedure such as trial court 

consideration of impermissible factors.1 State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 592 

(Iowa 1983).

Sentencing decisions of the district court are cloaked with a strong 

presumption in their favor, and a sentence will be disturbed by a reviewing court 

only upon a showing that the district court abused its discretion. State v. Johnson, 

513 N.W.2d 717, 719 (Iowa 1994) (citing State v. Neary, 470 N.W.2d 27, 29 (Iowa 

1991)). No abuse of discretion will be found unless the defendant shows that such 

discretion was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or to an 

extent clearly unreasonable. Id.

When imposing a criminal sentence, the court owes a duty to both the 

defendant and the public. State v. Fink, 320 N.W.2d 632, 634 (Iowa Ct. App. 

1982). After considering all pertinent sentencing factors, the court must select the 

sentencing option that would best accomplish justice for both society and the 

individual defendant. Id. The punishment selected by the court should fit both the 

crime and the individual. State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa 1979).

The trial court must exercise its discretion. Id. at 396. 

 

1 We note “‘a defective sentencing procedure does not constitute an illegal 

sentence.’” Goodwin v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Davis Cty., 936 N.W.2d 634, 644 (Iowa 

2019) (quoting Jefferson v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Scott Cty., 926 N.W.2d 519, 525 (Iowa 

2019)).
4

To ensure that the appellate court can review the sentencing court’s 

decision and determine whether the court exercised its discretion, the court must 

state on the record its reasons for imposing a particular sentence. Iowa R. Crim.

P. 2.23(3)(d); State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 690 (Iowa 2000). The “minimal 

essential factors” that must be considered and weighed by the sentencing court 

include the nature of the offense; the attending circumstances; the defendant’s 

age, character, propensities, and chances of reform. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d at 

396; see Iowa Code section 907.5 (2019) (standards for release on probation). A 

sentencing court must also consider any mitigating circumstances relating to a 

defendant. State v. Witham, 583 N.W.2d 677, 678 (Iowa 1998); Iowa Code 

§ 901.3(1)(g) (2019) (contents of presentence investigation).

III. Discussion.

Nelson argues that the sentencing judge relied solely on the nature of the 

offenses and his criminal history in determining the sentence and did not consider 

the minimum essential factors. We specifically note Nelson does not assert that 

the imposed sentences are outside those permitted by statute or that the 

sentencing judge considered an improper factor in imposing sentence.

The record in this case discloses that the sentencing was not some cursory 

disposition. The court ordered a PSI; the court had reviewed it in preparing to 

impose sentence. The contents of a PSI, as prescribed by Iowa Code 

section 901.3 are quite thorough. Nelson also filed his “Defendant’s Sentencing 

Memorandum” that stated no objection to the contents of the PSI. 
5

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated:

I have read the presentence investigation report. I’ve read the 

sentencing memo that [trial counsel] has filed. I’ve looked at the

exhibits. And obviously, I’ve heard, just like you have, the arguments 

of the attorneys. I understand you have a disability. You have a 

seizure disorder. There’s no question in my mind about that. All 

right? So that’s a given. I understand you have not had necessarily 

an easy life, and I do agree with the things that [trial counsel] . . . was 

saying about trying things short of prison. I do agree with that.

On the flip side, . . . as you’ve already heard, and you’re well 

aware of your own record, it’s atrocious. And [the prosecutor] had a 

different number, but the PSI report just reported, . . . you’ve been

convicted of thirty-two criminal offenses. And as already been 

alluded to, a good number of those offenses are the same type that 

you’re in front of me on right now. Assaults, assaults on peace 

officers, obstructing, interfering, public intoxication.

And I understand in and of themselves normally they’re not 

considered serious or prison-type offenses. But that record is

atrocious. I mean, when it’s a record of you mixing alcohol into your 

system and people getting put in danger, whether it’s police officers, 

the public, and in some instances, even yourself when you’re fighting 

with the police, that is highly dangerous. 

And the dispositions on your record show numerous jail 

sentences. It shows probation in the past. The PSI report indicates 

that you’ve had probation revoked five times in the past. [Trial 

counsel] indicated it wasn’t clear to him whether you’ve been on 

formal probation supervision or not, and the PSI isn’t clear on that 

either as far as I can tell. But they do state in there that the 

Department of Correctional Services has made numerous referrals 

in the past. And I don’t know if those referrals are a result of you 

being on probation to them or if those referrals are the result of you 

being on pretrial supervision to them. But either way, it’s the same 

point: that you have been under their supervision in some form and 

they’ve made referrals in the past and they say that your track record 

is that you’ve refused those referrals. . . .

And so it appears to me that the criminal justice system here 

has tried many things with you in the past and you have not taken

advantage of them. Your behavior has not changed. And on this 

record and from what I’ve heard, I really don’t see that continued

probation is going to work or be a good use of resources.

The court’s statement reveals that before determining Nelson’s sentence, it 

thoroughly considered the minimum essential factors and beyond: the nature and 

circumstances of the offense, Nelson’s personal history and character, his criminal 
6

history, his previous repeated failures to succeed on supervision and in treatment, 

his chance of reform, and the protection of the community. These reasons were 

sufficient to support the sentence imposed, and we discern no abuse of the court’s 

discretion. See Goodwin, 936 N.W.2d at 648 (finding that “[e]ven a terse and 

succinct statement is sufficient . . . when the reasons for the exercise of discretion 

are obvious in light of the statement and the record before the court” (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted)). To the extent in his brief Nelson cites to 

State v. Hess, 533 N.W.2d 525, 527–28 (Iowa 1995), and contends the court failed 

to give specific reasons for imposing consecutive sentences, we likewise reject 

this argument based on the record. 

IV. Conclusion.

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.