IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1908 Filed May 7, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ADOLFO OROZCO Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Tabitha Turner, Judge.
A defendant challenges his sentence of incarceration. AFFIRMED.
Karmen R. Anderson of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
TABOR, Chief Judge.
Adolfo Orozco Jr. appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating
while intoxicated (OWI). He argues the sentencing court abused its discretion
because (1) the presentence investigation (PSI) report reflected a fixed policy in
its sentencing recommendation, (2) the court “fixated” on his prior vehicle
accidents, and (3) the court should have ordered probation rather than
incarceration.1 Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Orozco admitted he was “driving too fast” on a West Des Moines road when
he strayed onto the gravel shoulder then veered back onto the asphalt, crossing
the center yellow line and striking an oncoming vehicle. After law enforcement
conducted a blood test detecting an unlawful concentration of alcohol, the State
charged him with OWI, third offense, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa
Code section 321J.2 (2023). At the time, he was on probation for second-offense
OWI, which was his third lifetime conviction.
Orozco pleaded guilty and, at sentencing, his counsel argued for a
suspended jail sentence and probation. Counsel highlighted Orozco’s voluntary
completion of residential substance-use treatment, his ongoing engagement in
outpatient treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, his good work prospects, and his
strong family support system. Speaking for himself, Orozco was optimistic about
his recovery, explaining what he had learned in treatment, his motivation to be a
good father to his two children, and his plans for remaining sober.
1 Orozco established good cause to appeal following his guilty plea. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104–05 (Iowa 2020). 3
By contrast, the State recommended five years imprisonment and
emphasized his history of OWI convictions. The prosecutor pointed out that
Orozco received probation for his first OWI, a hit-and-run, in 2014. And a few
years later, Orozco again received probation for his second OWI conviction. Then
in 2022, he was charged with OWI, third offense, in another collision but pleaded
down to OWI, second offense. Then, while again on probation, Orozco drove while
intoxicated and caused this third collision. The prosecutor expressed concern that,
despite repeated opportunities, Orozco “continued to show a disregard for others”
by driving while intoxicated and “continuously put[ing] other people at risk.” The
PSI author confessed her “recommendation in this case [wa]s difficult,” but
ultimately suggested a prison sentence. That recommendation was in part based
on Orozco admitting to continued use of marijuana while in treatment.
The court agreed it was “a tough decision” and commended Orozco for
completing treatment. But citing the twin needs for his rehabilitation and
community safety, it imposed an indeterminate five-year prison sentence. The
court emphasized Orozco’s “pattern of behavior” in having “caused accidents”
despite multiple convictions and its “paramount” concern of protecting the public.
The court stressed that “my default for ‘D’ felonies is not prison, it is not something
I default to.” As for Orozco’s substance-use treatment, the court cited the PSI
report saying he would be eligible to continue a program in prison. Orozco
appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review sentencing decisions for the correction of legal error. State v.
McCollaugh, 5 N.W.3d 620, 627 (Iowa 2024). If a sentence falls within statutory 4
limits, we will not overturn it unless the district court abused its discretion or
considered inappropriate matters. Id. We will find an abuse of discretion only if
the court’s reasoning was clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Iowa courts enjoy broad discretion to rely on
information presented at sentencing. State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa
2019).
III. Discussion
Orozco raises three challenges. First, he contends the recommendation in
the PSI report was based on a fixed policy for OWI sentencing.2 Second, he
asserts the district court improperly focused on the fact that his impaired driving
caused collisions. Third, he argues the court abused its discretion by imposing
incarceration rather than probation.
A sentencing court must weigh all the relevant factors and announce a
sentence that is specific to the convicted individual. State v. Blair, No. 23-1455,
2024 WL 3518287, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024) (citing Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
at 725). So a court may not establish a fixed policy to govern in every case
presenting a certain set of facts. State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa
1979). Extending that principle, Orozco argues it is also problematic for PSI
preparers to urge an outcome based on a predetermined parameter.
But Orozco cites no authority that PSI authors are held to the same standard
as sentencing courts. And we find none. Yet even if we were to accept his
2 The State disputes Orozco’s preservation of error on this point, but we will assume without deciding that error was preserved. See State v. Carson, 968 N.W.2d 922, 927 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). 5
premise, his contention fails. At sentencing, Orozco presented a transcript from a
different case, where the same PSI author testified she couldn’t recall ever
recommending probation for third-offense OWI. That testimony, according to
Orozco, revealed a “set disposition.” We disagree. A review of the PSI report
shows the author found the case difficult to assess and did consider
recommending probation. While not obligated to accept the PSI recommendation,
State v. Grgurich, 253 N.W.2d 605, 606 (Iowa 1977), the court noted its own
difficulty in reaching a decision and stated that it did not regard prison as a “default”
for class “D” felony convictions. So neither the PSI author nor the court applied a
fixed policy to Orozco’s situation.
As his second challenge, Orozco contends the court focused only on the
occurrence of his prior collisions, even though the record from his OWI convictions
did not show that he injured anyone or the extent of the damage. Granted, a
sentencing court abuses its discretion by considering only a single factor. See
State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 810 (Iowa 2021). But criminal history is a proper
consideration when picking the appropriate sentence.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 23-1908 Filed May 7, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
ADOLFO OROZCO Jr., Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Tabitha Turner, Judge.
A defendant challenges his sentence of incarceration. AFFIRMED.
Karmen R. Anderson of Anderson & Taylor, PLLC, Des Moines, for
appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Timothy M. Hau, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and
Chicchelly, JJ. 2
TABOR, Chief Judge.
Adolfo Orozco Jr. appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to operating
while intoxicated (OWI). He argues the sentencing court abused its discretion
because (1) the presentence investigation (PSI) report reflected a fixed policy in
its sentencing recommendation, (2) the court “fixated” on his prior vehicle
accidents, and (3) the court should have ordered probation rather than
incarceration.1 Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Orozco admitted he was “driving too fast” on a West Des Moines road when
he strayed onto the gravel shoulder then veered back onto the asphalt, crossing
the center yellow line and striking an oncoming vehicle. After law enforcement
conducted a blood test detecting an unlawful concentration of alcohol, the State
charged him with OWI, third offense, a class “D” felony, in violation of Iowa
Code section 321J.2 (2023). At the time, he was on probation for second-offense
OWI, which was his third lifetime conviction.
Orozco pleaded guilty and, at sentencing, his counsel argued for a
suspended jail sentence and probation. Counsel highlighted Orozco’s voluntary
completion of residential substance-use treatment, his ongoing engagement in
outpatient treatment and Alcoholics Anonymous, his good work prospects, and his
strong family support system. Speaking for himself, Orozco was optimistic about
his recovery, explaining what he had learned in treatment, his motivation to be a
good father to his two children, and his plans for remaining sober.
1 Orozco established good cause to appeal following his guilty plea. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 104–05 (Iowa 2020). 3
By contrast, the State recommended five years imprisonment and
emphasized his history of OWI convictions. The prosecutor pointed out that
Orozco received probation for his first OWI, a hit-and-run, in 2014. And a few
years later, Orozco again received probation for his second OWI conviction. Then
in 2022, he was charged with OWI, third offense, in another collision but pleaded
down to OWI, second offense. Then, while again on probation, Orozco drove while
intoxicated and caused this third collision. The prosecutor expressed concern that,
despite repeated opportunities, Orozco “continued to show a disregard for others”
by driving while intoxicated and “continuously put[ing] other people at risk.” The
PSI author confessed her “recommendation in this case [wa]s difficult,” but
ultimately suggested a prison sentence. That recommendation was in part based
on Orozco admitting to continued use of marijuana while in treatment.
The court agreed it was “a tough decision” and commended Orozco for
completing treatment. But citing the twin needs for his rehabilitation and
community safety, it imposed an indeterminate five-year prison sentence. The
court emphasized Orozco’s “pattern of behavior” in having “caused accidents”
despite multiple convictions and its “paramount” concern of protecting the public.
The court stressed that “my default for ‘D’ felonies is not prison, it is not something
I default to.” As for Orozco’s substance-use treatment, the court cited the PSI
report saying he would be eligible to continue a program in prison. Orozco
appeals.
II. Standard of Review
We review sentencing decisions for the correction of legal error. State v.
McCollaugh, 5 N.W.3d 620, 627 (Iowa 2024). If a sentence falls within statutory 4
limits, we will not overturn it unless the district court abused its discretion or
considered inappropriate matters. Id. We will find an abuse of discretion only if
the court’s reasoning was clearly untenable or unreasonable. State v. Formaro,
638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). Iowa courts enjoy broad discretion to rely on
information presented at sentencing. State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 550 (Iowa
2019).
III. Discussion
Orozco raises three challenges. First, he contends the recommendation in
the PSI report was based on a fixed policy for OWI sentencing.2 Second, he
asserts the district court improperly focused on the fact that his impaired driving
caused collisions. Third, he argues the court abused its discretion by imposing
incarceration rather than probation.
A sentencing court must weigh all the relevant factors and announce a
sentence that is specific to the convicted individual. State v. Blair, No. 23-1455,
2024 WL 3518287, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. July 24, 2024) (citing Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
at 725). So a court may not establish a fixed policy to govern in every case
presenting a certain set of facts. State v. Hildebrand, 280 N.W.2d 393, 396 (Iowa
1979). Extending that principle, Orozco argues it is also problematic for PSI
preparers to urge an outcome based on a predetermined parameter.
But Orozco cites no authority that PSI authors are held to the same standard
as sentencing courts. And we find none. Yet even if we were to accept his
2 The State disputes Orozco’s preservation of error on this point, but we will assume without deciding that error was preserved. See State v. Carson, 968 N.W.2d 922, 927 (Iowa Ct. App. 2021). 5
premise, his contention fails. At sentencing, Orozco presented a transcript from a
different case, where the same PSI author testified she couldn’t recall ever
recommending probation for third-offense OWI. That testimony, according to
Orozco, revealed a “set disposition.” We disagree. A review of the PSI report
shows the author found the case difficult to assess and did consider
recommending probation. While not obligated to accept the PSI recommendation,
State v. Grgurich, 253 N.W.2d 605, 606 (Iowa 1977), the court noted its own
difficulty in reaching a decision and stated that it did not regard prison as a “default”
for class “D” felony convictions. So neither the PSI author nor the court applied a
fixed policy to Orozco’s situation.
As his second challenge, Orozco contends the court focused only on the
occurrence of his prior collisions, even though the record from his OWI convictions
did not show that he injured anyone or the extent of the damage. Granted, a
sentencing court abuses its discretion by considering only a single factor. See
State v. Lacey, 968 N.W.2d 792, 810 (Iowa 2021). But criminal history is a proper
consideration when picking the appropriate sentence. See Iowa Code §§ 901.3,
.5; 907.5; see also Headley, 926 N.W.2d at 550–51.
And the court weighed many factors beyond Orozco’s repeated convictions,
including his laudable efforts toward sobriety, his age, his failed efforts at
rehabilitation while on probation, the need to protect the public from repetitions of
his conduct, and the availability of substance-use treatment options in prison.
From that list, the court gave the most weight to public safety: “[T]o me right now,
that’s paramount.” Balancing the relevant factors to determine an appropriate
sentence is inherent in the court’s duty to exercise discretion. See State v. Wright, 6
340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983). The court did not place undue emphasis on
any one factor. See State v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672, 678 (Iowa 2022) (“It was
not unreasonable for the district court to conclude that imposing probation or fines
instead of jail time would not deter McCalley from driving illegally or rehabilitate
her because she has proven as much in the past.”).
Finally, Orozco urges the prison sentence “will only serve to punish
someone that has a very real disease and addiction.” But “our task on appeal is
not to second guess the decision made by the district court.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d
at 725. Instead, we limit our review to whether the sentence was unreasonable or
based on untenable grounds. The sentencing court thoroughly considered
Orozco’s substance-use history and his efforts to maintain sobriety along with the
opportunities for continuing treatment in prison. Finding no abuse of discretion in
the court’s reasoning, we affirm the sentence.
AFFIRMED.