State of Iowa v. Ephirem Samuel Gurisho
This text of State of Iowa v. Ephirem Samuel Gurisho (State of Iowa v. Ephirem Samuel Gurisho) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 24-0466 Filed June 18, 2025
STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EPHIREM SAMUEL GURISHO, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Marshall County, Kathryn E. Austin,
Judge.
A defendant appeals his consecutive prison sentences. AFFIRMED.
Christopher A. Clausen of Clausen Law Office, Ames, for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney
General, for appellee.
Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., Langholz, J., and
Vogel, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206
(2025). 2
TABOR, Chief Judge.
Ephirem Gurisho entered Alford pleas1 to two counts of assault with intent
to commit sexual abuse and one count of indecent contact with a child. The district
court sentenced him to incarceration for an indeterminate twelve-year term (four
years for each count) with credit for time served. The court calculated the four-
year term for each count based on the enhanced sentencing provision under Iowa
Code section 901A.2(1) (2021).2 Gurisho contends that the court abused its
discretion by imposing consecutive sentences of incarceration without stating
sufficient reasons. Finding adequate reasons in the sentencing colloquy, we
affirm.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Fourteen-year-old N.O. was staying overnight at the home of N.L, age
thirteen, and M.L., age twelve.3 Around 3:00 a.m., Gurisho, who was eighteen,
showed up in front of their house. After Gurisho spoke with the victims, he gave
goodbye hugs to all three. With minor variations among the victims, Gurisho’s
hugs were accompanied by sexual suggestions and groping or grabbing of their
breasts, buttocks, and thighs outside their clothing. Later, N.O.’s mother and N.O.
reported Gurisho’s conduct to the Marshalltown Police Department.
The State charged Gurisho with one count of sexual abuse in the third
degree, one count of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse, and two counts
1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37 (1970) (“[A]n express admission of
guilt . . . is not a constitutional requisite to the imposition of [a] criminal penalty.”). 2 This sentencing enhancement applied because Gurisho was convicted of sexual
abuse in the third degree in 2020. 3 Gurisho agreed at sentencing that the district court could determine a factual
basis from the minutes of testimony, so we rely on the minutes for these facts. 3
of indecent contact with a child. In exchange for his Alford pleas, the State agreed
to amend the charges to two counts of assault with intent to commit sexual abuse
in violation of Iowa Code section 709.11(3) and one count of indecent contact with
a child in violation of section 709.12.4 The district court found a factual basis for
the three counts and accepted Gurisho’s Alford pleas. At the sentencing hearing,
the State requested consecutive prison terms. Gurisho asked for either
consecutive suspended sentences or concurrent prison terms based on the fact
that all of the crimes arose from the same incident.
After listening to both parties and considering the seriousness of Gurisho’s
conduct and its impact on the three victims, the court imposed an indeterminate
twelve-year prison term:
I have made the determination that consecutive sentences are appropriate in this matter due to the nature of the offenses charged as well as the separate victims, and while I appreciate that these all sprang out of the same event, in recognition of the victims, I find that a consecutive sentence is appropriate based on the seriousness of the charge and the domestic violence admissions as well as the information contained within the minutes of testimony. I believe that this sentence best provides for his rehabilitation as well as the protection of the community.
Gurisho appeals that sentence.5
II. Scope and Standard of Review
We review sentences within the statutory limits for an abuse of discretion.
State v. Headley, 926 N.W.2d 545, 549 (Iowa 2019). Before State v. Hill, appellate
4 The State agreed to dismiss the other count of indecent contact with a child. 5 Gurisho has good cause to appeal under Iowa Code section 814.6(1)(a)(3) because he alleges error in sentencing. See State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105 (Iowa 2020) (providing good cause exists when a defendant “appeals a sentence that was neither mandatory nor agreed to in the plea bargain”). 4
courts could infer reasons for consecutive sentencing from the district court’s
overall sentencing plan. 878 N.W.2d 269, 275 (Iowa 2016). But post-Hill case law
requires the district court to explicitly state reasons for ordering consecutive
sentences. State v. Luke, 4 N.W.3d 450, 456 (Iowa 2024). In doing so, the court
may resort to the same reasons for imposing a sentence of incarceration. Id. at
458. And a “terse and succinct” statement can be enough if its brevity does not
hinder appellate review. State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015).
III. Analysis
The district court provided clear reasons for imposing consecutive
sentences. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(2)(f); Luke, 4 N.W.3d at 456. The court
based its sentencing decision on “the seriousness of the charge” and the harms
done to the “separate victims.” The court also believed that the sentence would
best provide for Gurisho’s rehabilitation and the protection of the community.
In challenging his sentence, Gurisho fails to pinpoint deficiencies in the
district court’s reasoning. Gurisho claims that the court failed to give sufficient
reasons for his consecutive prison sentences—but offers no elaboration.
While the court did not provide a lengthy explanation for the indeterminate
twelve-year sentence, its “terse and succinct” statements permit us to review its
exercise of discretion. See Thacker, 862 N.W.2d at 408. Thus, we find no cause
for resentencing.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Iowa v. Ephirem Samuel Gurisho, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-iowa-v-ephirem-samuel-gurisho-iowactapp-2025.