IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 23-2048

Filed September 4, 2024

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

ANTONIO DAVID GOMEZ-EVANS,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Lawrence McLellan, 

Judge.

The defendant challenges his sentences. AFFIRMED. 

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

Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua A. Duden, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Tabor, C.J., and Greer and Schumacher, JJ.
2

GREER, Judge.

Antonio Gomez-Evans challenges the sentences imposed following his 

September 2023 guilty plea to eluding, in violation of Iowa Code 

section 321.279(3)(b) (2023) (count I); felon in possession of a firearm, in violation 

of sections 724.25 and 724.26(1) (count II); and possession of a controlled 

substance, third offense, in violation of section 124.401(5) (count III). GomezEvans takes issue with the district court’s imposition of sentence, asserting the 

court failed to consider mitigating circumstances. After reviewing the facts and 

proceedings, we affirm the sentences. 

I. Background Facts and Prior Proceedings. 

In January of 2023, Des Moines Police Officer Cade Moritz observed 

Gomez-Evans driving without license plates. Officer Moritz initiated his emergency 

lights, and Gomez-Evans took off in the vehicle, with Moritz giving chase. GomezEvans wound through snow-lined streets at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour, 

colliding with “multiple fences” and an ill-fated tree. After striking the tree, GomezEvans was forcibly ejected from his vehicle. Officers arrested Gomez-Evans, who 

was without life-threatening injuries, without incident. 

After the arrest, Des Moines Police Officer Trevor Hickey found a loaded

semi-automatic “Glock” brand handgun immediately adjacent to Gomez-Evans’s 

ultimate landing spot outside the vehicle. The firearm had an extended round 

magazine with a round located in the chamber. 

After Gomez-Evans was transported to the hospital, officers found a baggie

of brown powder in his pocket. The powder was later identified as heroin.
3

As a result of his conduct, the State charged Gomez-Evans with one class 

“C” felony, three class “D” felonies, and three traffic offenses.

To take responsibility and “move forward,” Gomez-Evans chose to enter 

guilty pleas.

1 As part of a plea agreement reached with the State, the State agreed 

to be bound by the recommendation of the presentence investigation (PSI) report

and Gomez-Evans retained the opportunity to argue for probation at the 

sentencing hearing. Both the State and Gomez-Evans agreed that any sentences 

would run consecutive to each other. Likewise, at the plea hearing, Gomez-Evans 

indicated that he understood the PSI report could recommend up to twenty years 

in prison if the preparer determined he should be incarcerated and not receive a 

suspended sentence and probation.

At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated:

[T]he Court, in pronouncing sentence and judgment, has reviewed 

the [PSI] report. The Court has taken into account Mr. Gomez’s age. 

The Court has taken into account the prior record of convictions, his 

employment and family circumstances. The Court has also taken 

into account his history of substance abuse and treatment that has 

occurred. The Court has also taken into account the nature of the 

offenses committed. 

To the extent there is a plea agreement, the Court has taken 

that into account also. Also, the Court has considered all the 

sentencing options that are available under the applicable 

sentencing statutes. And the Court concludes that the following 

sentence and judgment provides the maximum opportunity for 

rehabilitation of Mr. Gomez and the protection of the community from 

further offenses by him.

The district court imposed a prison sentence of ten years on count I, five years on 

count II, and five years on count III, all to be served consecutively. Following the 

1 Although the district court referenced a “signed petition to plead guilty,” it was not 

part of the record we have to review. Information concerning the substance of the 

plea agreement comes from district court hearing transcripts.
4

terms of the plea agreement, the district court then dismissed all remaining 

charges stemming from the underlying conduct, including the class “D” felony and 

three traffic offenses.

In the written order of disposition, the district court indicated that it 

considered numerous factors in sentencing, including each of the factors listed in

Iowa Code section 907.5: Gomez-Evans’s age, criminal record, employment 

history, family circumstances, mental-health history, substance-abuse history, the 

nature of the offense committed, the plea agreement, and the statutory sentencing 

requirements. In addition, the district court cited the PSI report and GomezEvans’s allocution as factors in determining the appropriate sentences. 

Gomez-Evans 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 show 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).

III. Preservation of Error and Good Cause to Appeal.

Gomez-Evans appeals the discretionary sentence imposed by the district 

court. The imposed sentence “may be challenged on direct appeal even in the 

absence of an objection in the district court.” State v. Lathrop, 781 N.W.2d 288, 

293 (Iowa 2010). Objections need not be raised during the imposition of sentence, 
5

as it is “exceedingly unfair to urge that a defendant, on the threshold of being 

sentenced, must question the court’s exercise of discretion or forever waive the 

right to assign the error on appeal.” State v. Cooley, 587 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 

1998).

Additionally, because Gomez-Evans challenges the sentences imposed—

not his guilty pleas—he has good cause for this appeal. See Iowa Code 

§ 814.6(1)(a)(3); State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020). 

IV. Analysis.

Gomez-Evans argues a single issue on appeal—the district court failed to 

articulate and consider mitigating factors, including his allocution, when deciding

his sentencing. 

During sentencing, the “court weighs multiple factors, ‘including the nature 

of the offense, the attending circumstances, the age, character and propensity of 

the offender, and the chances of reform.’” Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98 106 (quoting 

Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725). These factors provide the floor for the district court’s 

analysis, but it may look to other relevant circumstances, “so long as those facts 

were sufficiently established by the record and were significant to the sentencing 

issue.” State v. Manser, 626 N.W. 2d 872, 874 (Iowa Ct. App. 2001). The district

court need not list with specificity each factor the court considered in sentencing.

State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (“[A] failure to acknowledge 

a particular sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not 

considered.”). 

“The test for whether a sentencing court abused its discretion is not whether 

we might have weighed the various factors differently.” State v. Gordon, 998 
6

N.W.2d 859, 863 (Iowa 2023). “[O]ur 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. The sentencing court 

has broad discretion when deciding the appropriate weight to give each mitigating 

or aggravating factor. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d at 10 (“The court has discretion within 

the applicable statutory framework to determine the sentence which will best meet 

these goals.”). As an additional concern, the district court determines which legally 

authorized sentence best provides for the rehabilitation of the defendant and the 

protection of the community. See State v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Iowa 

2022). 

In the instant case, the district court considered a multitude of factors when 

formulating an appropriate sentence for Gomez-Evans. The district court 

specifically articulated that the court reviewed the PSI report, Gomez-Evans’s age, 

his prior record of convictions, his employment, and family circumstances. The 

district court also considered Gomez-Evans’s history of substance abuse and the 

nature of the offenses committed. After discussing these factors and GomezEvans’s plea agreement, the district court ultimately decided to follow the 

recommendations set forth in the PSI report. 

Although not articulated as a factor at the sentencing hearing, the district 

court specifically added that it considered “defendant’s allocution” as a sentencing 

consideration in the written sentencing order. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(2)(f) 

(requiring that the reasons for the sentences imposed “appear[] in the record”). 

And during that allocution, Gomez-Evans took responsibility for the crimes and 

expressed remorse regarding his actions. The district court noted the 
7

accomplishments that Gomez-Evans described in his allocution but referenced the 

seriousness and nature of the current criminal activity and pointed out that some 

of the crimes he committed in the past were when he was “either on probation or 

work release or parole.” 

Given this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing 

Gomez-Evans’s sentence. Although Gomez-Evans may have wished for a lesser 

sentence, “[w]e find no evidence that the sentence was based on grounds that 

were untenable or unreasonable and thus find no abuse of discretion.” Gordon, 

998 N.W.2d at 863. We affirm the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.