Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1020 Filed August 19, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Arvin Glen Vos, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Jasper County, The Honorable Steven J. Holwerda, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Joseph G. Bertogli, Des Moines, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Badding, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Sandy, J. 1 SANDY, Judge. Arvin Vos pled guilty to two counts of tampering with a witness, an aggravated misdemeanor. The district court sentenced Vos on each count to 180 days in jail with all but 45 days suspended. The district court imposed the sentences consecutively, meaning all but ninety days of jail time were suspended in total. Vos now appeals his sentence. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Ray Crammond passed away in 2023 under mysterious circumstances, and his death was later ruled to be a homicide. Crammond’s caretaker, Diana Becker-Abeyta, was charged with murder in connection with his death. While in county jail, Becker-Abeyta was in regular telephone contact with Vos, the executor and beneficiary of Crammond’s estate. Becker-Abeyta and Vos had conversations over the phone plotting ways to intimidate Crammond’s daughter, Christine Borchardt. Borchardt had filed a will contest to remove Vos as executor and beneficiary of Crammond’s will and was a witness in Becker-Abeyta’s murder proceedings. The phone calls between Vos and Becker-Abeyta were recorded. Vos rammed his car into Borchardt’s mailbox on or about April 8, 2024. He then left a Hallmark card in the mailbox, with the message, “The gang of 23 gang for 25” written on the envelope. The message inside the card provided, “The 23 gang is wanting to be the gang of 25 we have selected you two to be the next ones make your funeral arrangements you are next.” In a phone call, Vos told Becker-Abeyta “apparently [Borchardt] didn’t like some [of ] the notes I left in her mailbox.” On April 17, Vos broke Borchardt’s mailbox and left another note that read, “This is what your head will look like when I get done with you.” 2 Vos pled guilty to two counts of tampering with a witness. At the sentencing hearing, Vos gave an allocution. Borchardt and her partner, Roger Mora, gave victim impact statements. The district court then pronounced its sentence: The Court has reviewed the presentence investigation report, heard the statements of counsel, the statements of Mr. Vos, the statements of Mr. Mora and Ms. Borchardt. The Court[] [has] also considered everything that it needs to consider as required by law, and that being Mr. Vos’s age, his prior criminal history, the need for rehabilitation, the need for protection of society, and also, in particular, the circumstances of this case. In part, this case is certainly more complex than most cases that appear in front of the Court, so with that being said, there’s a number of things this Court cannot do. I have no control over the pending civil matters, whether that be Mr. Vos’s divorce, or pending divorce, whether it’s the will contest, whether it’s Ms. Becker-Abeyta’s criminal matter in Polk County. There’s—there’s nothing the Court can do or has any control over those matters. Ms. Borchardt asked for peace, and unfortunately, that’s nothing the Court can do either, and I am probably convinced that no matter what I do, nobody’s going to be happy. Even if I send Mr. Vos to prison for the maximum term, I’m sure even that would not satisfy Ms. Borchardt and all the feelings and everything she’s gone through. And probably no matter what I impose as sentence, Mr. Vos is not going to appreciate it either. The word “justice” gets thrown around a lot, and justice really depends on where you’re sitting at the table. Justice for [prosecutor] Mr. Leon or Ms. Borchardt may look different than justice for [defense counsel] Mr. Bertogli or Mr. Vos or anyone else who’s somewhat unrelated to–to these–to these proceedings, so that makes this decision difficult. The Court also has to balance the fact that it appears for maybe the first seventy years of Mr. Vos’s life, or thereabouts, he had minimal, if any, contacts or involvement with the criminal system. And now here in the last five years, he has a criminal conviction for willful injury, and now is before the Court today for two counts of tampering with a witness. And the Court needs to weigh both of those matters, or both of those stages in his life, the 3 seventy years of—of noncriminal involvement with his current position over the last few years. The Court is going to—well, the Court would also state that the recent actions–or the actions that–that prompted the filing of the charges, those actions are egregious. Society certainly cannot condone that type— the type of behavior that Mr. Vos exhibited and that he has pled guilty to, and from someone who’s seventy-four years old, the Court would think they would certainly know better. And his actions didn’t happen once. They happened at least twice, or the two times that are before the Court, and those weren’t spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment actions. They were calculated. The Court also has to consider that calculation contrasting to Mr. Vos’s statement that somehow he was either lied to or manipulated in his actions, and in hindsight, he wished he hadn’t done those. The Court is going to adjudge Mr. Vos guilty of the charges of tampering with a witness, two counts, excuse me, both aggravated misdemeanors. On each count, the Court is going to impose 180 days in jail, with all but 45 days suspended, on two years probation. Those sentences will run consecutive to each other for a total of 360 days, with all but 90 days suspended, on two years probation, $855 fine on each count, plus surcharges, and court costs. If there is matters of restitution, the Court will set that matter out for a hearing. The Court will also extend the no-contact orders between Mr. Vos, Ms. Borchardt, and Mr. Mora for a period of five years. Vos now appeals his sentence. STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review the district court’s sentence for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d 269, 272 (Iowa 2016) (cleaned up). “We will not reverse the decision of the district court absent an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). 4 DISCUSSION Vos first argues the district court abused its discretion by considering unproven conduct and inaccurate information from the two victim impact statements read at his sentencing hearing. In making its sentencing decision, “the district court is to weigh all pertinent matter in determining a proper sentence including the nature of the offense, the attending circumstances, the defendant’s age, character, and propensities or chances for reform.” State v. Loyd, 530 N.W.2d 708, 713 (Iowa 1995) (citation omitted). “Even if improper material is presented at sentencing, it is reversible error only if the district court relied on it.” State v. Schooley, 13 N.W.3d 608, 619 (Iowa 2024). “Absent consideration of an improper factor, a district court’s sentencing decisions are cloaked with a strong presumption in their favor.” Id. “We will not draw an inference of improper sentencing considerations which are not apparent from the record.” Formaro, 638 N.W.2d at 725. We cannot say the district court relied on any improper material in its reasoning and pronouncement of sentence. There is no evidence in the record showing the district court relied upon unproven conduct or inaccurate information when issuing the sentence, and it did not refer to the victim impact statements in any way during its pronouncement. It instead listed several factors that are all within its purview to rely upon in issuing its sentence. Without any evidence that the court relied upon or considered any improper sentencing factors, Vos’s argument fails. Vos next asserts the district court erred by imposing his sentences consecutively, and that his sentences were excessive. “A sentencing court’s decision to impose a specific sentence that falls within the statutory limits ‘is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor, and will only be overturned 5 for an abuse of discretion or the consideration of inappropriate matters.’” State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105–06 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). Vos argues the district court only relied upon the nature of the offenses as justification for the sentences imposed.1 But the district court gave several reasons for the sentence it imposed, including Vos’s surprising turn to criminal behavior after over seventy years of criminal-free behavior, the egregiousness of the offense, Vos’s age, and the nature of his conduct. The court noted that society “cannot condone” Vos’s behavior, and that a man of his age should know better. The district court characterized his actions as “calculated.” We decline to overturn the district court’s decision to impose the sentences consecutively, as there was no abuse of discretion or consideration of inappropriate matters in its reasoning. Iowa Code section 903.1(2) (2024) permits a “maximum penalty . . . [of ] imprisonment not to exceed two years.” The district court’s two 180- day sentences, with all but 45 days suspended per count, are both within the statutory limit and are thus cloaked with a “strong presumption in [their] favor.” See Damme, 944 N.W.2d at 105–06. Considering the reasons the district court gave during its pronouncement, we cannot say the district court abused its discretion. AFFIRMED. 1 Vos does not claim that the district court failed to give separate reasons for its consecutive sentences. See Iowa R. Crim. P. 2.23(2)(g); State v. Hill, 878 N.W.2d at 275. 6