Opinion
No. 10–0929.
2013-02-13
STATE of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Suad SABLJAKOVIC, Defendant–Appellant.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda Fangman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County, Stephen C. Clarke, Judge.
A defendant appeals his sentencing asserting the district court should have ordered concurrent rather than consecutive sentences. AFFIRMED.
Mark C. Smith, State Appellate Defender, and Robert Ranschau, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant. Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Bridget A. Chambers, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Ferguson, County Attorney, and Linda Fangman, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by VAITHESWARAN, P.J., and TABOR and MULLINS, JJ.
MULLINS, J.
Suad Sabljakovic appeals his conviction for sexual abuse in the third degree and incest, in violation of Iowa Code sections 709.4 and 726.2 (2009). He contends the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to consecutive terms of incarceration rather than making his sentences concurrent, considering his immigration from Bosnia in 1997, his employment status, and his lack of a criminal record.
We review a sentence imposed in a criminal case for an abuse of discretion. State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). A sentence that is within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor. Id. We will not find an abuse of discretion unless we are able to discern that the decision was exercised on grounds or for reasons clearly untenable or unreasonable. Id.
The court explained the reason for the consecutive sentences to be: “The duration of the victimization of your daughter and the fact that you have shown absolutely no remorse for the crimes for which you've been convicted persuade me that given as well the seriousness of the offenses, consecutive sentence is appropriate.” The State and the presentence investigation report also recommended consecutive sentences. We find no abuse of discretion here.
AFFIRMED.