State of Iowa v. Jacob Dean Archer

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-1305
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 24-1305 Filed December 17, 2025

STATE OF IOWA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JACOB DEAN ARCHER, Defendant-Appellant. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Ashley Stewart, Judge.

A criminal defendant appeals his sentence, arguing the district court

considered unproven conduct during sentencing. AFFIRMED.

Thomas Hurd of Hurd Law Firm PLC, Des Moines, for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Adam Kenworthy, Assistant Attorney

General, for appellee.

Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Chicchelly, J., and

Vogel, S.J.*

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

(2025). 2

VOGEL, Senior Judge.

Early one morning in September 2023, Jacob Archer struggled to stay in his

lane while driving in Polk County. Law enforcement pulled him over and observed

an open beer in his cup holder. After field sobriety testing indicated Archer was

impaired, he was arrested and charged with operating while intoxicated (“OWI”),

third offense. See Iowa Code § 321J.2 (2023). He later pleaded guilty. While

awaiting his sentencing hearing, Archer pleaded guilty to another OWI offense in

Guthrie County. That new OWI and plea were included in Archer’s presentence

investigation report (“PSI”).

At the sentencing hearing, the district court noted Archer’s troubling history

of driving while impaired—five lifetime OWI’s including the Guthrie County

offense.1 Although Archer objected to some portions of the PSI, he did not object

to including the Guthrie County OWI and he directly acknowledged that guilty plea

during the hearing. The court ultimately sentenced him to a five-year term of

incarceration with all but 180 days suspended, emphasizing to Archer that it

needed “to fashion a sentence that . . . is going to have an impact on your decision

making so you don’t do this again.” Archer now appeals, arguing the district court

improperly considered unproven conduct when it factored the Guthrie County OWI

into his sentence.

The district court’s sentencing decision “is cloaked with a strong

presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned for an abuse of discretion or

the consideration of inappropriate matters.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720,

1 Archer was also convicted of OWI in 2012, 2014, and 2021 in Polk County. 3

724 (Iowa 2002). Still, “a sentencing court may not rely upon additional, unproven,

and unprosecuted charges unless the defendant admits to the charges or there

are facts presented to show the defendant committed the offenses.” Id. at 725.

On our review, the district court was authorized to consider the Guthrie

County OWI. First, Archer pleaded guilty to the offense in Guthrie County, thereby

admitting the charge.2 Second, the offense and plea were listed within the PSI and

Archer never challenged their inclusion. Archer’s attorney noted two other pending

charges, and the district court specifically exempted those pending charges from

consideration, given the lack of convictions or pleas. It is well established that

district courts have “a right to rely on the information in the PSI when the defendant

fails to object to the information in the PSI.” State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24

(Iowa 2018). Because Archer acquiesced to the offense being considered below,

he may not now assert error on appeal. Id.; see State v. Ambrose, 861 N.W.2d

550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (“[I]t is unfair to allow a party to choose to remain silent in

the trial court in the face of error, taking a chance on a favorable outcome, and

subsequently assert error on appeal if the outcome in the trial court is unfavorable.”

(citation omitted)).

Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion and affirm Archer’s sentence.

AFFIRMED.

2 Although Archer argues he never admitted the charge “before the Polk County

sentencing court,” we do not allow parties to game our judicial system by asserting inconsistent positions in different tribunals. See generally State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34, 43 (Iowa 2006) (discussing judicial estoppel).