IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-1058

Filed August 7, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ETHAN ALEXANDER ORTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Ian K. Thornhill, Judge.

The defendant challenges the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to 

two counts of first-degree murder, which he committed when he was seventeen 

years old. AFFIRMED.

Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Josh Irwin, Assistant 

Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Linda J. Hines, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, P.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ. Chicchelly, J., 

takes no part.
2

GREER, Judge.

Ethan Orton pled guilty to two counts of first-degree murder, class “A” 

felonies, in violation of Iowa Code sections 707.1 and 707.2(1)(a) (2021), that he 

committed as a juvenile. He was seventeen years and seven months old when he 

stabbed both of his parents and hit his mother with an ax multiple times, resulting 

in their deaths. Attacking the sentence imposed under three theories, Orton 

asserts the court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a fifty-year minimum 

term of incarceration. Orton argues the court failed to: (1) start from a presumption 

against a minimum term of incarceration, (2) properly apply the constitutional 

juvenile-sentencing factors, and (3) adequately explain its sentencing decision.1 

After consideration of his arguments, we affirm the sentence imposed.

I. Procedural Background. 

After Orton pled guilty to the two felony counts, at a separate sentencing

hearing, the court explained that Orton “is free to argue for, essentially, no 

minimum or any term of minimum years before [he] can be eligible for parole and 

the State could do the same.” The court asked Orton if he agreed with that 

summary of the parameters of juvenile sentencing, and Orton responded that he 

agreed with the court’s summary and had nothing else to add. The court then 

clarified that if it 

were to impose just a life sentence and no more than the standard 

rules of the parole board or wherever they may be or however they 

would be applied to [Orton], the Court after doing an individualized 

determination in this case [could] decide to set a minimum number 

of years for . . . Orton to serve as part of that life sentence, then he 

1 Orton has a right to appeal from his guilty plea of the class “A” felonies. See Iowa 

Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3).
3

would not be eligible for parole until those minimum number of years 

minus any credit he might get for serving that time would expire.

Orton stated that he also agreed with that summary.

Because Orton was a juvenile at the time he committed the offenses, the 

court explained that it was to consider certain circumstances, called the 

Miller/Lyle/Roby factors,

2 before imposing a minimum term of incarceration. To 

address some of those circumstances and the implications for sentencing, two 

experts testified. After hearing from the experts, reviewing the presentence 

investigation report, and listening to Orton’s allocution and each party’s 

recommendations, the court sentenced him to two terms of life in prison with fiftyyear minimums before Orton becomes eligible for parole, with the terms to be 

served concurrently. It is from this sentence that Orton appeals.

II. Standard of Review.

“[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 [it] 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). To establish an 

abuse of discretion, the defendant bears the burden to affirmatively show that the 

district court relied on improper factors or clearly untenable grounds. State v. 

Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 759, 762 (Iowa 1998).

2 These factors come from Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) and State v. 

Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014). They were clarified in State v. Roby, 897 

N.W.2d 127 (Iowa 2017). Our supreme court referred to them as the 

Miller/Lyle/Roby factors first in Goodwin v. Iowa District Court, 936 

N.W.2d 634, 637 (Iowa 2019). We use that terminology here.
4

III. Discussion.

Specific to individuals who committed a class “A” felony while under the age 

of eighteen, Iowa Code section 902.1(2)(a) lists sentencing options that include a 

life sentence with either immediate parole eligibility or parole eligibility after serving 

a minimum set term. To start, as was done here, a court must consider the 

Miller/Lyle/Roby factors in an individualized sentencing hearing with support from 

expert testimony when it is contemplating imposing a mandatory minimum 

sentence on an offender who was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Roby, 897 

N.W.2d at 148. Those five specific mitigating factors to consider when sentencing 

juveniles are:

(1) the age of the offender and the features of youthful behavior, such 

as “immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and 

consequences”; (2) the particular “family and home environment” 

that surround the youth; (3) the circumstances of the particular crime 

and all circumstances relating to youth that may have played a role 

in the commission of the crime; (4) the challenges for youthful 

offenders in navigating through the criminal process; and (5) the 

possibility of rehabilitation and the capacity for change. 

Lyle, 854 N.W.2d at 404 n.10 (quoting Miller, 567 U.S. at 477–78). “[A] sentencing 

court must consider the five [Miller/Lyle/Roby] factors in a mitigating fashion in the 

juvenile sentencing process, and the consideration of any potential aggravating 

factors, including the circumstances of the crime, cannot overwhelm the 

sentencing court’s analysis.” State v. Zarate, 908 N.W.2d 831, 854 (Iowa 2018).

Yet, when reviewing sentences for juvenile offenders, we cannot merely 

rubber-stamp the trial court’s sentencing decision, but should ensure that the 

sentencing court has properly applied the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors. Roby, 897 

N.W.2d at 148. “[I]f the court follows our outlined sentencing procedure by 
5

conducting an individualized hearing, applies the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors, and 

imposes a sentence authorized by statute and supported by the evidence, then we 

affirm the sentence.” State v. Majors, 940 N.W.2d 372, 387 (Iowa 2020); accord 

id. at 388–91 (describing in detail the analysis required for each factor). In addition, 

“[o]ur district courts can and should weigh public safety (incapacitation), 

deterrence, and retribution when sentencing juvenile offenders for violent felonies.” 

Goodwin, 936 N.W.2d at 647 (reviewing a sentence for second-degree murder).

1. The Presumption Challenge.

Orton points to two of the court’s statements during its consideration of the 

Miller/Lyle/Roby factors that he contends show the court “began with a 

presumption for a minimum term, rather than against.” The first came when the 

court said the expert testimony and use of Miller/Lyle/Roby factors serve “to make 

an individualized determination of what the minimum sentence should be for these 

offenses” and the second was a comment that Orton’s family and home life did not 

“justify significant deviation here as far as what the ultimate minimum sentence 

should be.” Framed that way, Orton argues the comments show that the court 

misapplied the presumption against a minimum incarceration that should have 

been in Orton’s favor. Instead, in his view, the court applied a presumption in favor 

of a minimum-incarceration term. 

“[T]he default rule in sentencing a juvenile is that they are not subject to 

minimum periods of incarceration.” Roby, 897 N.W.2d at 144. But at the onset of 

the sentencing hearing, the court confirmed that it was following the parameters 

established under Null, Lyle, and Zarate, along with guidance from Iowa Code 

section 915.5(13), and it recognized that Orton could advocate for any allowable 
6

sentence. The court also clarified that an individualized determination would be 

required before deciding to impose a minimum number of years as a part of the 

life sentence. 

After the experts testified, each party detailed their recommendations for 

sentencing—the State recommended a minimum sentence of fifty years with the 

sentences to run concurrently, and Orton requested parole after a minimum term 

of ten years with the sentences running concurrently. And it is noteworthy that the 

comments Orton points to came after the court was asked by both parties to assess 

a minimum sentence, albeit of different lengths. Because the court then examined 

the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors specific to Orton’s circumstances, we do not find that 

the court misinterpreted its role in appropriately applying the presumption against 

a minimum term of incarceration. 

2. Assessment of Mitigating-Factors Challenge.

Here, Orton faults the court for not giving sufficient weight to the 

Miller/Lyle/Roby factors: proximity to age eighteen, home and family life, 

circumstances of the offense, difficulty navigating the criminal justice system, and 

his potential for rehabilitation. Orton also complains that the court overly 

emphasized the competency finding as a non-mitigating factor, instead of 

considering it as a separate unrelated consideration for a different day. As to the 

factors, the court had the benefit of detailed expert reports and testimony that 

addressed the factors it had to consider.
7

First, Orton called his expert, Dr. Tracy Thomas, a forensic psychologist, 

who had reviewed a previously authored competency report,

3 court filings, 

discovery and interviewed Orton on two occasions. She stated that Orton grew up 

in “a very chaotic household. . . . His parents were often dismissive, demeaning 

of him, belittling, harsh, so there was a definite mismatch between his needs and 

his parents’ approach to dealing with him.” Based upon this history, Dr. Thomas 

described Orton’s issues as being very complex and having a lot to do with 

personality dysfunction, the mismatch between his temperament and his parents’

parenting approach, and his defense mechanisms and coping skills. She also 

reported that Orton had no prior criminal history and she was unaware of any 

violent behavior or history of mental-health treatment or diagnoses from Orton prior 

to when he killed his parents. However, from her evaluation, Dr. Thomas opined 

that Orton had a disorganized attachment style. She also determined that he was 

at low risk for future violence and had a high level of maturity or sophistication. 

When asked if she believed that Orton had the ability to appreciate the criminality 

of his conduct, she said, “No, I think at the time that this happened his cognitive 

faculties were sufficiently disintegrated, that he was not even considering that. He 

wasn’t consciously thinking about that issue.” But in response to a follow-up 

question, Dr. Thomas clarified that Orton had “the cognitive skills” to appreciate 

the criminality of his actions. Lastly, she noted that Orton has the potential for 

3 Dr. Arnold Andersen at the Iowa Department of Corrections performed an 

evaluation of Orton, determining he was qualified to stand trial. After a January 

2022 hearing, the court found Orton competent to stand trial.
8

rehabilitation. On cross-examination, she agreed that “this was a particular[ly] 

brutal crime.”

The State called clinical neuropsychologist Dr. Daniel Tranel, who also 

reviewed the competency report and Dr. Thomas’s report and evaluated Orton 

under various testing as well. Regarding Orton’s age at the time of the offense—

five months shy of eighteen—he stated that it was “not a materially significant 

difference” from an eighteen-year-old adult “psychologically or cognitively.” For 

that reason, Dr. Tranel did not feel that Orton’s age “would mitigate anything about 

this offense.” He added, regarding Orton’s family and home environment, that he 

“did not see anything profoundly abnormal or severely wrong with his 

developmental environment” and thus it would also not mitigate Orton’s 

responsibility. Because no one else was involved in the planning of the crime, 

Tranel also believed that the circumstances of the crime did not provide any 

mitigation. However, Dr. Tranel agreed with Dr. Thomas that Orton “has potential 

for rehabilitation and change.” Yet during cross-examination, Dr. Tranel agreed 

that he rarely evaluated patients under age eighteen in his clinic.

At this point, the court asked Orton and the State for their recommendations. 

The State recommended “a life sentence for each of the charges for which [Orton 

has] pled guilty and then in each of those sentences that he be given a minimum 

sentence of [fifty] years and those sentences to run concurrent to each other.” The 

State explained that it made that recommendation for a minimum sentence

because it did not believe that any of the factors reported by Dr. Tranel were 

mitigating other than Orton’s potential for rehabilitation. Orton recommended a 

term of imprisonment of a minimum of ten years, stating that he believed he did 
9

not appreciate the criminal nature of his conduct, that he had never been given the 

opportunity to work with a mental-health professional, and he “is a good candidate 

for rehabilitation.” Furthermore, he argued that “[t]his will allow for [him] to receive 

multiple years of rehabilitative therapy while his brain is still developing, as well as 

for a number of years after it has developed.” He emphasized the dysfunction of 

his family and impact on him leading to this criminal act.

When pronouncing the sentence, the court explained that “[t]he question 

before the Court here today and the evidence the Court heard today deals with 

what, if any, but, essentially, what minimum amount of time should [Orton] be 

required to serve before he’s eligible for parole.” The court concluded, following 

an individualized determination, that it did not find Orton’s “age is that much of a 

mitigating factor here because . . . he [was] so close to the age of [eighteen]” at 

the time of the offense. And the court noted that Orton’s cognitive abilities and 

performance in school were normal. Even Dr. Thomas conceded that there would 

not be much change in Orton’s brain development between a person age

seventeen years and seven month and an eighteen-year-old person and that Orton 

had a “relatively high level of maturity.” Furthermore, “to the extent that the 

parents’ treatment of . . . Orton was not ideal and probably somewhat distasteful 

to a lot of us . . . it provides some mitigation” but does not “rise to the level of a 

serious factor in the Court’s mind that would justify significant deviation here as far 

as what the ultimate minimum sentence should be.” Ultimately, “[i]t was very brutal 

crimes that took these two individuals’ lives” and, the court found “the sentence 

imposed offers [Orton] the maximum opportunity for rehabilitation balanced 

against the interest in protecting the community and, again, all of the other items 
10

that I recited in my analysis.” As for the mitigating factor that both experts agreed 

was present, Orton’s potential for rehabilitation, the court noted it was an 

“important factor” and did weigh it along with the concerns about public safety and 

deterrence. The court included a similar statement in its written sentencing order. 

Based upon the court’s consideration of the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors after 

hearing from experts at the individualized hearing at sentencing, we find no abuse 

of discretion in the sentencing court’s imposition of the fifty-year minimum 

sentence.

3. Failure to Explain the Imposition of the Fifty-Year Sentence. 

Although the court imposed a fifty-year minimum sentence, Orton argues 

little was said to explain the reasons for that decision, except a comment from the 

court that the term was not tantamount to a life sentence without parole because 

Orton would be sixty-seven years old at the time of his release, “recognized in a 

lot of circles as the age of retirement, so we know life is not over at [sixty-seven].” 

As a reviewing court, we are helped by a detailed record of sentencing reasons 

and here, the written order included other considerations not specifically 

mentioned at the hearing. See State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016) 

(“We encourage sentencing courts to give more detailed reasons for a sentence 

specific to the individual defendant and crimes . . . .”). Likewise, the court 

confirmed it looked at all of the Miller/Lyle/Roby factors and their interplay with

other legitimate concerns and rationale for sentencing. And, on top of that, the 

court summarized the decision by noting:

In determining this sentence I considered, in addition to all of 

the information I’ve just recited here on the record, I also included in 

my consideration the information contained in the presentence 
11

investigation report, which gave me information including the history 

and characteristics of the Defendant, but again, those played into the 

[Miller/Lyle/Roby] factors that I discussed.

Also discussed the nature and circumstances of the offense 

that played into the Court’s decision-making. The Defendant has no

criminal history so that played a part in determining the 

[Miller/Lyle/Roby] factors, but no criminal history means that that did 

not aggravate at all the Court’s determination in this case. I 

considered the recommendation of both counsel. I, obviously,

considered all of the evidence that was presented here today. I 

considered the statement of the Defendant.

I find that the sentence imposed offers the Defendant the 

maximum opportunity for rehabilitation balanced against the interest 

in protecting the community and, again, all of the other items that I 

recited in my analysis of the [Miller/Lyle/Roby] factors.

Thus, the district court provided adequate reasons for the sentence it imposed. 

IV. Conclusion.

For all of the reasons given above, we affirm the sentence imposed. 

AFFIRMED.