State of Iowa v. Mark Anthony Swatta Jr.

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 25-1819
Filed October 21, 2026
_______________
State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Mark Anthony Swatta Jr.,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County,
The Honorable Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Tiffany Kragnes of Kragnes & Associates, PC, West Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Nicholas E. Siefert, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Badding, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.

2
BULLER, Judge.
The sole issue in this appeal, as framed by Mark Swatta Jr., is whether
“the court state[d] reasons sufficient to reveal why it selected incarceration
for this defendant”? Based on our review of the record, we answer “yes” and
affirm.
Swatta pled guilty to one count of possessing methamphetamine—
third or subsequent offense, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code
section 124.401(5) (2025). The court sentenced him to prison. As its
reasoning for doing so, the court orally cited the presentence investigation
report, Swatta’s “lengthy criminal record,” his poor prospects for treatment
or rehabilitation, and the need to protect the public. The written sentencing
order cited some of these same factors, as well as Swatta’s employment and
family circumstances and the nature of the offense.
While Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 2.23(2)(f )–(g) requires a
statement of reasons for sentencing be placed on the record, our courts have
been flexible in how district courts meet that requirement. Even a “terse and
succinct” statement is sufficient so long as “the reasons for the exercise of
discretion are obvious in light of the statement and the record before the
court.” State v. Thacker, 862 N.W.2d 402, 408 (Iowa 2015) (cleaned up). A
district court is not required to mention every possible mitigating factor when
imposing a sentence. State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).
Nor is the court required to disclaim every possible lesser sentencing option.
State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 67 (Iowa 2022).
Against this standard, we find the district court discharged its duty to
announce reasons for imposing a prison sentence.
AFFIRMED.