IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1073

Filed March 7, 2018

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

STEPHEN SIFUENTES,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Monica Wittig, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals his sentence for stalking and extortion. AFFIRMED.

Samuel A. Wooden of Reynolds & Kenline, L.L.P., Dubuque, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Sharon K. Hall, Assistant 

Attorney General, for appellee.

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

BOWER, Judge.

Steven Sifuentes appeals his sentence for stalking, in violation of Iowa 

Code section 708.11(3)(c) (2017), and extortion, as a habitual offender in 

violation of Iowa Code section 711.4(1)(c) and 902.8. We find a pre-sentence 

investigation (PSI) was properly ordered and considered by the district court. We 

also find the district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive 

sentences. We affirm the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

Sifuentes was charged with stalking, extortion, as a habitual offender, and 

invasion of privacy. He pleaded not guilty on March 2, 2017. A plea agreement 

was ultimately reached in which Sifuentes would serve five years imprisonment 

for extortion and two years for stalking. The State agreed to withdraw the 

habitual offender enhancement and dismiss the charge of invasion of privacy. 

The sentences would run consecutive to each other and consecutive with other 

Dubuque County charges. Sifuentes pleaded guilty on May 8.

At the plea hearing, the district court conducted a full colloquy. The 

colloquy also encompassed charges of interference with official acts causing 

bodily injury and no-contact-order violations.

1

 During the plea hearing, the 

district court stated, “I assume we’ll order a PSI?” Trial counsel responded:

We’re hoping that since he’d already had a PSI done in the 

Cerro Gordo case, that we could schedule [sentencing] in two 

weeks and then the victim would be available and hopefully they 

could just add these charges to his existing PSI.

 

1 The charges of interference with official acts causing bodily injury and the no-contactorder convictions have not been appealed.
3

Another judge ordered the Cerro Gordo County PSI for use at a combined 

sentencing hearing. The PSI was obtained, and a copy was reviewed by the 

sentencing judge. The sentencing hearing took place June 12. The district court 

heard statements from the victim, prosecutor, defense counsel, and Sifuentes. 

The district court sentenced Sifuentes to two years in prison for stalking and five 

years in prison for extortion, to be served consecutively. The charges were also 

to run consecutively with a sentence resulting from the Cerro Gordo County

convictions. Sifuentes now appeals.

II. Standard of Review

If a sentence is within the statutory limits, we review a district court’s 

sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion. State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545, 

552 (Iowa 2015). “Thus, 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.” Id. at 553. “In other words, the district court did not abuse 

its discretion if the evidence supports the sentence.” Id.

Claims of an illegal sentence are reviewed for correction of errors at law. 

State v. Hoeck, 843 N.W.2d 67, 70 (Iowa 2014).

III. Iowa Code Section 901.2

Sifuentes claims the district court was required to order a PSI, failed to do 

so, and, therefore, the case must be remanded for resentencing. Sifuentes 

pleaded guilty to extortion, a class “D” felony. The district court is required to 

order a PSI when the offense is punishable as a class “D” felony. See Iowa 

Code § 901.2(b). However, the district court did have access to the PSI 

completed in relation to the Cerro Gordo County offenses as well as the updated
4

PSI reflecting the charges of stalking and extortion. Sifuentes’s trial counsel 

specifically asked for the Cerro Gordo County PSI to be updated and used in this 

case. The State agreed to the use of the updated PSI and the district court 

explicitly mentions the PSI in its reasons for the sentence. A completely new PSI 

is not necessary when there is a recent PSI already in existence. Cf. State v. 

Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 556-57 (Iowa 2015); State v. Hinton No. 10-1715, 

2012 WL 470237, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 15, 2012). We find the district court 

did order a PSI including the offenses occurring in both Cerro Gordo and 

Dubuque counties and affirm. 

IV. Consecutive Sentences

When describing the reasons for the sentence the district court stated, 

“[T]he Court gives special significance to: the nature of the offenses, the fact 

[Sifuentes] was on probation in Cerro Gordo County, the recommendation of the 

County Attorney, the pre-sentence investigation, and safety concerns for the 

public.” Sifuentes claims the district court had no PSI and no record of the Cerro 

Gordo County convictions, and, therefore, the district court abused its discretion 

by running his sentences consecutively with the Cerro Gordo County convictions, 

as the sentence could not be supported by a factual basis.

However, the district court did have access to the information regarding 

the Cerro Gordo County offenses. Those offenses were mentioned in the May 8 

plea hearing; Sifuentes himself admitted there was a sentencing order in Cerro 

Gordo County, trial counsel informed the district court Sifuentes’s convictions and 

sentences in Cerro Gordo County had been affirmed on appeal, and the Cerro 
5

Gordo County PSI provided information on the conviction and sentence relating 

to those charges. We find the district court did not abuse its discretion.

AFFIRMED.