State of Iowa v. Santonio Duntae Burnett
CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
Date FiledSeptember 23, 2026
Docket26-0286
StatusPublished
📰 News Coverage: Read the LAWS.com news report on this case
Full Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________
No. 26-0286
Filed September 23, 2026
_______________
State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Santonio Duntae Burnett,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County,
The Honorable Brandon Schrock, Judge.
_______________
AFFIRMED
_______________
Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Theresa R. Wilson,
Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant.
Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Katherine Wenman, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________
Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Schumacher and Buller, JJ.
Opinion by Buller, J.
1
BULLER, Judge.
Santonio Burnett appeals his sentence after pleading guilty to
operating while intoxicated—third or subsequent offense, a class “D” felony
in violation of Iowa Code section 321J.2 (2024). Burnett’s sole argument on
appeal is that the sentencing court should not have considered his lack of
remorse when imposing sentence.
Burnett pled guilty pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25,
37 (1970). The minutes establish he was stopped by police after running a
stop sign and swerving. An officer saw multiple indicia of intoxication, but
Burnett refused testing. After a first appeal and remand for resentencing, the
district court conducted the sentencing hearing at issue here.
In allocution, Burnett said that he believed he had gotten sober and
“done what [he] had to do to take the steps to move forward and making
everything that [he] made wrong right.” The court’s oral reasons for
sentence referred to the facts of the offense, the parties’ recommendations,
the presentence investigation report, and the need to balance Burnett’s
rehabilitation with public protection. In its written order, the court also cited
“the defendant’s lack of remorse through his allocution to the court.”
Burnett correctly concedes that lack of remorse is a proper sentencing
consideration. See State v. Knight, 701 N.W.2d 83, 88–89 (Iowa 2005). But he
claims the record does not support that he lacked remorse. We disagree. The
district court was in the best position to evaluate the sincerity of Burnett’s
allocution, and it concluded he lacked remorse. We discern no abuse of
discretion. See State v. West Vangen, 975 N.W.2d 344, 355–56 (Iowa 2022)
(affirming consideration of allocution as basis for finding lack of remorse).
AFFIRMED.
2