IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-0903

Filed July 13, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

KADIN JEFFREY MILLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, Stephen A. Owen, 

District Associate Judge.

Kadin Miller appeals a finding of sexual motivation and his sentences 

following convictions for harassment and operating while intoxicated. AFFIRMED.

Lucas M. Taylor of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Heard by Bower, C.J., and Tabor and Greer, JJ.
2

BOWER, Chief Judge.

Kadin Miller appeals the district court’s finding his harassing conduct was 

sexually motivated and his sentence for harassment and operating while 

intoxicated. We affirm the district court’s finding of sexual motivation and the 

sentences imposed.

I. Background Facts & Proceedings.

In April 2021, the State filed a trial information charging Miller with 

harassment in the first degree, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.7(1)(a)(5) 

(2021).1 In January 2022, Miller requested bifurcation of the underlying criminal 

case and determination of sexual motivation for purposes of the need to register 

as a sex offender.

2

 The State resisted. The court approved the bifurcation, noting 

the facts and nature of the case favored bifurcation as the question of sexual 

motivation was not an essential element to the harassment offense and might 

inflame the jury’s “passion to punish.” The court further noted some or all the facts 

concerning guilt and sexual motivation might be the same, but the jury would be 

1 The specific paragraph of the harassment statute Miller pleaded guilty to, section 

708.7(1)(a)(5), provides:

A person commits harassment when, with intent to intimidate, 

annoy, or alarm another person, the person . . . [d]isseminates, 

publishes, distributes, posts, or causes to be disseminated, 

published, distributed, or posted a photograph or film showing 

another person in a state of full or partial nudity or engaged in a sex 

act, knowing that the other person has not consented to the 

dissemination, publication, distribution, or posting.

2

Iowa Code section 708.7(5) provides, “For purposes of determining whether or 

not the person should register as a sex offender pursuant to the provisions of 

chapter 692A, the fact finder shall make a determination as provided in section 

692A.126.” Section 692A.126(1) in turn provides, “If a judge or jury makes a 

determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that [the offense] for which a conviction 

has been entered . . . [is] sexually motivated, the person shall be required to 

register [as a sex offender].” 
3

asked to draw different conclusions from them. The court noted, “The statutes 

plainly separate issues of culpability (guilt) and community protection (registry).”

In February, while the harassment case was pending, Miller was charged 

with operating while intoxicated (OWI), first offense, in violation of Iowa Code 

section 321J.2(2)(a), and possession of a controlled substance, second offense, 

in violation of section 124.401(5).3

The next day, Miller pleaded guilty in the harassment case. Miller’s written 

plea included the following paragraphs:

12. I admit I did the following: That between May and July of 

2019, I was in a relationship with [J.] Our relationship ended on bad 

terms. I had in my possession a video recording of [J.] and myself 

engaged in sexual intercourse. On or about September of 2019, I 

posted the video on the internet. I knew [J.] had not consented to 

the posting of the video. My intent was to get back at her for our 

relationship ending on bad terms by annoying her with the video 

being public. The video was posted while I was in Boone County 

Iowa.

13. I do not admit and do not stipulate that I committed this 

crime because I was “sexually motivated.”

14. I object to the court’s use or consideration of the Minutes 

of Testimony as part of this plea or use at sentencing. I request the 

court to use only my admissions in this written plea of guilty for 

determining whether a sufficient factual basis has been made.

In May, Miller pleaded guilty to OWI, first offense, and the State agreed to 

dismiss the possession charge. Miller requested immediate sentencing.

The court held a combined dispositional proceeding on whether Miller’s 

harassment offense was sexually motivated before proceeding to sentencing on 

both the harassment and OWI convictions. A forensic psychologist testified on 

Miller’s behalf, and Miller submitted statements from relatives and other supporters 

3 The events giving rise to these charges occurred on February 8, 2022.
4

and an article about unemployment among the formerly incarcerated. The State 

provided testimony from a police officer, Andrew Leeck (a former friend and 

coworker of Miller), and a friend of the victim.

The psychologist testified generally that posting sexual videos without the 

other person’s consent as Miller had done was often “based on anger and revenge” 

and sexual motivation “would be atypical” but possible. Specific to Miller, the 

psychologist opined there was no indication of sexual gratification or ongoing 

behavior as Miller was “very angry” at J. and thought their break up “was 

embarrassing and cruel.” 

The police officer testified about investigating the harassment report, 

concluding J. did not consent to the recording or posting of the video. Miller had 

told the officer he could “not recall anything about it[,] . . . he knew nothing about 

the video or anything in regards to it.” 

Leeck testified Miller showed him the video in the fall of 2019. When he did 

so, Miller already had it loaded on his phone. Leeck said the action was “out of 

nowhere honestly” and neither made any comments when Miller played the video. 

Leeck later began a relationship with J. and was the person to notify her of the 

video’s existence. J.’s friend watched the video for J. and testified as to the identity 

of the persons in the video.

The defense argued the State had not established a sexual motivation 

beyond a reasonable doubt, so Miller should not be placed on the sex offender 

registry. Miller requested a deferred judgment on the harassment conviction and 

that he be placed on probation for the OWI conviction. However, if the court were 

to impose sentences, he asked they run concurrently. 
5

The State argued that while revenge might be a motivation, at least part of 

Miller’s motivation was his own sexual gratification and the court should require he 

register as a sex offender. The State requested a one-year jail sentence for each 

charge, running consecutively, with 180 days in jail on the harassment charge 

followed by probation with mental-health treatment and sex-offender treatment.

The court then heard from Miller, and J. read her victim impact statement.

In determining if the State had proven a sexual motivation, the court gave 

thorough attention to the psychologist’s findings and opinion Miller’s motivation 

was “revenge and discharge of his own negative emotions.” The court noted 

Miller’s choice to not only post the video, but to post it on a pornographic website 

and his subsequent actions ensuring others knew of and saw the video. On the 

question of sexual motivation, the court made specific findings:

The court finds defendant’s act in posting [the] video . . . was

sexually motivated. Defendant had his recording device in his hand 

as he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He began the recording 

when she was facing away from him and could not see him. The 

recording was taken while intercourse was underway and 

defendant’s erect penis is visible. He later posted the video to a 

pornography website. Choosing a pornography website 

demonstrates defendant’s continued interest in the sexually obscene 

content of the video. It was available to him over the course of time 

to satisfy his interest in the ongoing sexual content of the video for 

his sexual gratification. Showing it to a male friend also 

demonstrates his ongoing interest in sharing his sexual interest in 

the video with others.

The court ordered Miller to register as a sex offender. The court denied Miller’s 

request for deferred judgment and ordered he serve an indeterminate two-year 

prison term on the harassment conviction and a consecutive one-year jail term on 

the OWI conviction.
6

Miller appeals his sentences, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on 

the finding of sexual motivation and asserting the district court abused its 

sentencing discretion by considering unproven conduct and failing to properly 

consider mitigating factors.

II. Standard of Review.

We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a 

sentencing enhancement for correction of errors at law. State v. Booker, 989 

N.W.2d 621, 626 (Iowa 2023). “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable 

to the State, including all legitimate inferences and presumptions that may fairly 

and reasonably be deduced from the record evidence.” Id. (alteration in original) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

We review sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion 

when the sentence is within the statutory limits. We will find an abuse 

of discretion when “the district court exercises its discretion on 

grounds or for reasons that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” 

A ruling is untenable when the court bases it on an erroneous 

application of law. If the evidence supports the sentence, the district 

court did not abuse its discretion.

State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018) (internal citations omitted). 

III. Analysis.

As a threshold matter, Miller asserts Iowa Code section 814.6 should not 

apply to a contested hearing on sexual motivation or, in the alternative, that good 

cause exists to consider the appeal.4 We agree a challenge to the portion of a 

sentence ordering the defendant register as sex offender provides good cause to 

4

Iowa Code section 814.6 governs the right of appeal. As applies here, “Right of 

appeal is granted the defendant from . . . [a] final judgment of sentence, except . . . 

[a] conviction where the defendant has pled guilty.” Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3).
7

appeal. See State v. Heginger, No. 20-1657, 2021 WL 5105918, at *1 (Iowa Ct. 

App. Nov. 3, 2021); see also State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) 

(holding “good cause exists to appeal . . . when the defendant challenges his or 

her sentence rather than the guilty plea”).

A. Sufficiency of the evidence. If a judge or jury determines beyond a 

reasonable doubt a person was sexually motivated when committing harassment 

in the first degree, that person must register as a sex offender. Iowa Code 

§ 692A.126(1)(f). “‘Sexually motivated’ means that one of the purposes for 

commission of a crime is the purpose of sexual gratification of the perpetrator of 

the crime.” Id. § 229A.2(11); see also id. § 692A.101(29) (“‘Sexually motivated’ 

means the same as defined in section 229A.2.”). Our supreme court rejected an 

interpretation of this provision as requiring “instantaneous or contemporaneous 

sexual reward or consequence for the respondent.” In re Det. of Blaise, 830 

N.W.2d 310, 321 (Iowa 2013). Rather, to fit within the statutory definition, the 

“purpose” of sexual gratification is “a broad, forward-looking term encompassing 

the concept of intent” and not “proof of a respondent's achievement of actual or 

immediate gratification.” Id. at 323. In addition to the other intent requirements for 

conviction of harassment—“to intimidate, annoy, or alarm another person”—the 

State must show sexual gratification is “one of the purposes” for committing the 

crime. Iowa Code § 708.7(1)(a), (5).

Miller argues there is “no testimony, evidence, or exhibits establishing 

sexual motivation.” He focuses on the psychologist who found him to be motivated 

by anger and revenge. Miller asserts the court instead relied on unreasonable 
8

inferences to find his crime was sexually motivated.5 Miller also claims the court’s 

conclusion of sexual motivation does not involve conduct prohibited under the 

statute.

“The requisite intent to arouse or gratify . . . sexual desire . . . can be 

inferred from an accused’s conduct, remarks, and all surrounding circumstances.” 

State v. Jorgensen, 758 N.W.2d 830, 837 (Iowa 2008). “Because it is difficult to 

prove intent by direct evidence, proof of intent usually consists of circumstantial 

evidence and inferences that can be drawn from that evidence.” State v. 

Hennings, 791 N.W.2d 828, 837 (Iowa 2010) (citation omitted), overruled on other 

grounds by State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016). We trust the fact finder 

to make determinations regarding intent and motivation. See id. “[A] court ‘faced 

with a record of historical facts that supports conflicting inferences must presume—

even if it does not affirmatively appear in the record—that the trier of fact resolved 

5 Miller refers to portions of the court’s statement in ruling on the sexual motivation 

issue. The full quote is excerpted below: 

I think the facts would show the following: That Mr. Miller planned to 

record that video. It was not an accident. As I viewed it, it looked to 

me as if he was holding it in his hand during the intercourse he was 

having with [J.] . . . . I think Mr. Miller planned that event. I think the 

evidence would show that he knew the relationship was having some 

difficulty. He was clearly having sexual intercourse with [J.] for his 

sexual gratification at that time, and I think that carried on when he 

determined that he was going to distribute that video. I think the 

evidence establishes that beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it 

further establishes it by the fact that he posted it on a pornography 

web site where the only real purpose I can find for anyone going 

there would be sexual gratification, and he knew to go there so he 

could show it to Mr. Leeck. I think he is one of the more than 1300 

views shown. I don’t know what an accolades or accomplishments 

are. I am not that technically oriented, but I don’t think you have to 

know what that means to see that Mr. Miller was taking satisfaction 

in that video on-line.
9

any such conflicts in favor of the prosecution, and so must defer to that resolution.” 

State v. Ernst, 954 N.W.2d 50, 57–58 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). “[I]t is not for 

us to interfere with the finding made [by the fact finder] when supported by 

substantial evidence, even though the evidence may have also supported a finding 

favorable to the defendant.” Id. at 58 (citation omitted).

Miller lists four of the court’s findings he claims are unfounded. We will 

address each in turn. First, “The video recording of sexual intercourse and its 

publishing was preplanned.” Under the particular circumstances of this case, it 

appears Miller’s plan to film the video is distinct from his plan to disseminate the 

video. However, we find the facts do support a determination he planned the 

posting ahead of time. By his own account, Miller had the video in his possession 

for two months after the relationship ended before uploading it—and the

relationship only lasted about two months. Miller argued there is no proof he has 

uploaded videos before, which would mean he deliberately determined to post this 

video, chose the website, and created a new account from which to post the video. 

This all provides a reasonable basis from which the court could infer a planning 

process in Miller’s criminal act of posting and disseminating the video without J.’s 

consent.

Second, “Miller knew the relationship was in trouble.” As this statement has 

little to no bearing on whether Miller committed the crime in part for his own sexual 

gratification, we do not address it. 

Third, “[T]he sexual gratification that Miller received during sexual 

intercourse continued when he published the video.” This is a factual 

determination the court was required to make in its role as factfinder, and the 
10

conclusion reached by the court was based on legitimate inferences and 

presumptions from the evidence. We presume Miller received sexual gratification 

during and from the making of the video, considering his choice to create the video 

and to focus partially on his own actions and anatomy. We find sexual gratification 

can be inferred from his decision to keep the video long after the end of his shortterm relationship. We further find sexual gratification can be inferred from Miller’s 

choice to post the video on a pornographic website for continuing dissemination.

His claim of revenge motivation is not supported by the evidence due to his failure 

to inform J., her friends, or her family he posted the video. His unprompted 

decision to show the video to Leeck and having the video loaded and ready to 

watch also cut against a claim of revenge.

Fourth, “Miller was one of the 1300 people who viewed the video, 

suggesting he received sexual gratification from the website and viewing the 

video.” Leeck testified Miller had the video pulled up on his phone and played it 

for him, and Miller did not question or challenge this testimony. Leeck later told J. 

about the video being online, from which the court could reasonably conclude 

Miller played the video through the pornography website on his phone and was at 

least one of the “views” for the video. We find watching a video of sexual 

intercourse on a pornography website suggests sexual gratification on Miller’s part.

Miller’s final argument challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is the 

conduct used to establish sexual motivation is not the prohibited conduct under the 

statute. Miller recognized that the offense and the finding of sexual motivation 

require different evidence in arguing his motion to bifurcate: “The defenses to the 

underlying criminal matter and the sexual motivation determination are 
11

inconsistent with one another, requiring differen[t] strategies and evidence to be 

presented.” In granting the bifurcation, the court recognized the difference in the 

evidence presented, the potential unfair prejudice, and the potential confusion of 

a jury. While the direct evidence supporting Miller’s conviction, specifically the 

admission in his plea, is not proof of sexual motivation, the court held a fact-finding 

hearing to evaluate the evidence and subsequently made a determination beyond 

a reasonable doubt. The court had the responsibility to consider not only conduct 

specifically prohibited under the statute, but also the conduct related to the offense

and indicative of Miller’s motivation underlying the prohibited conduct. See 

Hennings, 791 N.W.2d at 837.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, substantial

evidence supports the court’s determination Miller’s conduct constituting firstdegree harassment was sexually motivated.

B. Unproven conduct. Miller next asserts the district court erred when it

relied on unproven conduct in determining his sentence. “A sentencing court’s 

decision to impose a specific sentence that falls 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.’” Damme, 944 

N.W.2d at 105–06 (citation omitted). Thus, “a defendant must affirmatively show 

that the district court relied on improper evidence such as unproven offenses.” 

State v. Jose, 636 N.W.2d 38, 41 (Iowa 2001).

The “unproven” conduct Miller bases this argument on is the contested

sexual-motivation finding discussed above. The statements Miller objects to were 

made in the context of a fact-finding determination, not in the context of sentencing. 
12

Once the court made the sexual motivation determination, the order for Miller to 

register as a sex offender was required by statute. Iowa Code § 692A.126(1)(f) 

(“If a judge or jury makes a determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that any of 

the following offenses . . . are sexually motivated, the person shall be required to 

register as provided in this chapter: . . . Harassment in violation of section 708.7, 

subsection 1, 2, or 3.”). Miller does not point to any other unproven conduct within 

the court’s consideration.

In sentencing, the court could rely on the facts included in Miller’s plea and

also the facts found beyond a reasonable doubt after the hearing on sexual 

motivation, Miller’s allocution, and any relevant conduct described in J.’s victim 

impact statement. See State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 761 (Iowa 1998) (ruling a 

victim impact statement is construed “to enable the victim to fully detail the impact 

of the offense, regardless of whether certain elements of a crime have been 

established”). “[W]hen a challenge is made to a criminal sentence on the basis 

that the court improperly considered unproven criminal activity, the issue 

presented is simply one of the sufficiency of the record to establish the matters 

relied on.” State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (citation 

omitted).

When sentencing Miller, the court discussed his age, education, his support 

system, and minor criminal history. It also considered his employability, his 

remorse, and noted his accrual of the OWI charge during the pendency of the 

harassment case as an aggravating factor. The court also considered the nature 

of the offenses and the harm caused to J. and her new partner. It was on these 
13

factors the court based its sentencing decision. We discern no reliance on 

improper factors.

C. Mitigating factors. Miller asserts the district court abused its discretion 

in sentencing him to prison because it did not weigh mitigating factors 

appropriately. 

A sentencing court has a duty to consider all the circumstances of a 

particular case. We do not believe however it is required to 

specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a 

defendant. Furthermore, the failure to acknowledge a particular 

sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not 

considered.

State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995)). The court considered the 

circumstances of this case, and the consecutive sentence pronounced was 

reasonable and within the court’s discretion. 

We affirm Miller’s sentences.

AFFIRMED.