State of Iowa
v.
Douglas Neal Warburton
After pleading guilty to lascivious acts with a child, Douglas Warburton was sentenced to a term of incarceration not to exceed ten years. There was no victim impact statement available at the time of the sentencing hearing, and Warburton argued that a newly discovered victim impact statement provided grounds for resentencing. The district court denied the motion, and he appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for resentencing. The court of appeals concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to address the issue because Warburton’s notice of appeal did not specifically mention the denial of his motion for resentencing and he was therefore required to file a second notice of appeal to incorporate that order. Warburton now seeks further review of the court of appeals’ ruling that it did not have jurisdiction.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Douglas Neal Warburton
Attorney for the Resister
Genevieve Reinkoester
Attorney for the Applicant
Karmen R. Anderson
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
Non-Oral
Dec 16, 2025 9:00 AM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Gregg R. Rosenbladt, Judge. AFFIRMED. Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Ahlers and Langholz, JJ. Opinion by Ahlers, J. (5 pages)
Douglas Warburton appeals his sentence following his Alford plea to lascivious acts with a child. He attempts to raise three issues: (1) the court erred by refusing to resentence him after he filed a motion asking the court to consider a victim impact statement from his family member; (2) the court abused its discretion by considering the recommendation for incarceration contained in the presentence investigation report (PSI) because the recommendation was not adequately supported; and (3) the court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence rather than suspending it. OPINION HOLDS: Because Warburton never appealed from the order denying his request for resentencing, we do not have jurisdiction over his challenge to that order. Warburton failed to preserve error on his challenge to the PSI because he did not object to its recommendation as lacking a proper basis as he now claims on appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Warburton to a term of incarceration because it did not apply a fixed sentencing policy and it weighed relevant sentencing factors when it reached its sentencing determination.