Watch Oral Arguments Live
State of Iowa
v.
Douglas Neal Warburton
Defendant Douglas Warburton appealed from his conviction for lascivious acts with a child. He seeks further review of the court of appeals’ decision finding he did not preserve error when he failed to file a second notice of appeal regarding the district court’s denial of his motion for resentencing when the victim submitted a victim impact statement after entry of the judgment of sentence or was not timely made available to Warburton or others before entry of the judgment.
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
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.