IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 22-1527

Filed July 26, 2023

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

LUIS MANUEL CERVANTES PULIDO,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, John J. Haney, 

Judge.

A defendant appeals the sentences imposed on his criminal convictions. 

AFFIRMED.

Taylor Reichardt of Kaplan & Frese, LLP, Marshalltown, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Olivia D. Brooks, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Ahlers, P.J., Badding, J., and Blane, S.J.*

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

(2023).
2

BADDING, Judge.

Luis Cervantes Pulido was charged by trial information with third-degree 

sexual abuse and first-degree burglary. Two years later, he reached a plea deal 

with the State under which he agreed to plead guilty to amended charges of assault 

with intent to commit sexual abuse and second-degree burglary in return for the 

State’s recommendation of concurrent sentences. In a written guilty plea for the 

assault charge, Cervantes Pulido admitted that he assaulted the victim with the 

specific intent to commit sexual abuse and asked “the court to accept the minutes 

of testimony as true” to establish a factual basis. And then at a plea hearing for 

the burglary charge, Cervantes Pulido admitted that he entered the victim’s 

occupied premises with the intent to commit an assault and remained there despite 

being told to leave. The court accepted the pleas and set the matter for sentencing.

At sentencing, the State recommended concurrent terms of imprisonment 

not to exceed two and ten years, highlighting “the nature and circumstances of 

these offenses,” “harm caused to the victim,” the recommendation in the 

presentence investigation report for prison, the need to protect the community from 

further offenses, and general and specific deterrence. The defense requested 

anything but prison, pointing to Cervantes Pulido’s age; family and employment 

circumstances; community supports; remorse; status as an otherwise “lawabiding, hard-working family man”; and the sex-offender consequences he would 

be facing even without prison. 

The court sided with the State and sentenced Cervantes Pulido to 

concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed two and ten years. The court 

explained its decision as follows:
3

I have considered all the sentencing options provided for in 

Chapters 901 and 907 of the Iowa Code, and my judgment, relative 

to sentence in this matter, is based upon that, which will provide you 

the maximum opportunity to rehabilitate yourself, while at the same 

time, protecting the community from further offenses by you or others 

who may have been—may be similarly situated to you.

I have considered your age; your education; your prior 

criminal history; which appears, at least, based on the information I 

have, to be nonexistent; your employment; your family 

circumstances. I’ve considered the nature of the offense committed, 

or the offenses committed, and the harm to the victim.

I’ve considered the underlying facts and circumstances for the 

charges that you have pled guilty to. I’ve considered the need to 

protect the community. I’ve considered the State’s recommendation, 

defense counsel’s recommendation, the presentence investigation 

report recommendation. I’ve considered the need to deter you and

others who are similarly situated from committing offenses of this 

nature.

We all make life choices, sir. Your life choices that occurred 

on the evening of this incident changed the victim’s life forever and 

changed your life forever, as well as many others: Your family, her 

family. There is probably nothing more intrusive into a person’s life 

than to commit a burglary on their home and engage in assaultive 

behavior with the intention to commit sexual abuse.

Cervantes Pulido now appeals the sentences imposed. We review 

sentencing decisions for correction of errors at law and “will not reverse the 

decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the 

sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). 

“Sentencing decisions . . . are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.” 

State v. Grandberry, 619 N.W.2d 399, 401 (Iowa 2000) (ellipsis in original). And 

“[o]ur task on appeal is not to second-guess the sentencing court’s decision.” State 

v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Iowa 2022) (citation omitted); accord 

Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. 

Cervantes Pulido submits that the court’s decision to sentence him to prison 

was an abuse of discretion because the “only way” the court could have reached 
4

the sentence that it did was by improperly relying on “unproven conduct alleged in 

the State’s minutes of testimony.” While that can be a defect in the sentencing 

procedure, Cervantes Pulido “fails to point to any unproven conduct referenced in 

the minutes on which the district court relied.” See State v. Reifenrath, 

No. 22-1045, 2023 WL 3861919, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. June 7, 2023). He instead 

simply argues the “court’s consideration of unproven conduct is evidenced by” the 

final paragraph of the court’s rationale, quoted above. But in that paragraph, the 

court appropriately considered the offenses Cervantes Pulido admitted that he 

committed. As a result, we find Cervantes Pulido has failed to establish “an 

affirmative reliance” on inappropriate matters, as is required to overcome the 

presumption of validity in sentencing. See id. at *2 (citation omitted); accord State 

v. Ashley, 462 N.W.2d 279, 282 (Iowa 1990).

Cervantes Pulido also complains the court “did not even mention” the 

“support letters” that he submitted for consideration at sentencing. To the contrary,

the court stated it had “reviewed and will consider them for purposes of these 

proceedings today” after the defense offered them at the start of the hearing. Even 

if it hadn’t, the district court is not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim 

of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. 

App. 1995). 

Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the sentences imposed.

AFFIRMED.