Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-2060 Filed October 7, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Joshua Kim Dockum, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Delaware County, The Honorable Monica Zrinyi Ackley, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Allison Linafelter, Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Greer, P.J., Sandy, J., and Doyle, S.J. Opinion by Sandy, J. 1 SANDY, Judge. Joshua Dockum pleaded guilty to first-degree theft, identity theft, and forgery after taking over $10,000 from his employer and opening a line of credit under his employer’s name. The district court sentenced Dockum to ten years in prison for his crimes. Dockum appeals his sentence, arguing the court abused its discretion when it relied on unadmitted conduct in the victim impact statement and further abused its discretion when it “only considered the nature of the offenses” in sending him to prison rather than a deferred judgment or probation. Because the court did not rely on unproven conduct in the victim impact statement and considered all relevant factors when sentencing Dockum, we affirm his sentence. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Although he was originally charged with one count of first-degree theft, six counts of forgery, and five counts of identity theft, Dockum took a plea deal to dismiss five of the forgery counts and four of the identity-theft counts. In exchange for the dismissal of these counts and the State’s agreement to remain silent during sentencing, Dockum pleaded guilty to first-degree theft, one count of identity theft, and one count of forgery. As a factual basis for the plea, Dockum admitted that from December 2019 to July 2023 he stole more than $10,000 from his employer “by making, completing, executing, authenticating, issuing, or transferring a writing to open a vendor account/line of credit with Black Clover, so that it purported to be the act of [the company] who did not authorize that act, with the intent to defraud another and/or with knowledge that he was facilitating a fraud.” Additionally, Dockum permitted the court to rely on the minutes of testimony as a further factual basis for his guilty plea. 2 The case proceeded to sentencing. As agreed, the State did not make a recommendation. But Dockum argued for a deferred sentence based on his lack of prior criminal history, his mental-health struggles, his steady employment after the events leading to the charges, and the support of his family members. After making his argument, Dockum exercised his right of allocution, simply stating, “I’m sorry for what I did. It won’t happen again.” Then, a member of the board of directors for the company Dockum defrauded entered the following victim impact statement: Um, I guess I wasn’t quite sure what, what information I was going to give today, but we would like to make sure that we don’t want to be vindictive and say, “Put [Dockum] in jail for any of these specific crimes,” but we would like restitution for what he’s done to us. Um, he’s lied to us. He’s forged signatures. We still have, um, a lawsuit going on in Connecticut for, um, credit applications in this case, they’re suing [the company] because [Dockum] forged signatures of two directors to set up an account in his, in [the company’s] name, when it was really for himself, and then he didn’t pay the bill, so they’re suing [the company] for that. And we’ve had, um, attorney fees ongoing, just trying to fight it. I’m trying to think of what else. I just found out this morning that, um, with the secretary of state, [Dockum] is still listed as a board of director member of [the company], that he’s secretary and treasurer for [the company], which he has never been, so he falsified the records with the State of Iowa. We will get that corrected in this next week. After hearing Dockum’s request for a deferred judgment, his allocution, and the victim impact statement, the court gave the following sentence and justification: Mr. Dockum, trust is a very hard thing to earn, and you were put in a position of great trust. You used that trust to your advantage, not once, not twice, not even three times, you did it repeatedly. And, you know, a lot of concepts about what we do here in this courtroom relate to statutory things that give me direction on how to sentence somebody, and then a lot of things have to do with the actual punishment for the criminal conduct that you have perpetrated on innocent people trying to run a business in 3 this community. And yes, it’s very different than if you had actually taken a fist and hit one of them and caused them to break a tooth or used a knife to cut one of them or even attempt to harm them. I understand the very different distinctions between what most people would call white collar crime versus a very violent offense. But in some circumstances, you’ve done just as much extensive damage. As you heard [the victim], he has now incurred additional cost and expenses and the frustration of time to have to pull his business out of all of the mess that you have created. And it’s not appropriate to give you a deferred judgment based on your repeated violation of the business’s trust, the misrepresentation, misrepresentations not only to the business but the trust that you had with the community that you were given. So people coming to the business looking for the business to do business with instead were directed at you for your own personal gain. So looking at what is contained within the letters of recommendation, they all point to you having integrity, and I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I wonder if any of those people that wrote those letters looked that word up. Because integrity is not defined by what you did in the dictionary. In fact, what you did was the exact opposite of integrity. And it’s a shame. Because it leaves people in the community to not feel they can trust others. And I’m sure it’s put these gentlemen in a position to question every day what they saw in you that they could not discern was not truthful, what they saw in you that they could not discern to be very deceitful in planning, and in the end, resulted in what you have done. It was a great deal of money that you took, someone else’s identity that they had worked long and hard to create, a reputation that has been destroyed. And I don’t think it’s appropriate to suspend the sentences, based on all of that. This company is going to have ramifications long into the future, because of what you did. So I’m remanding you into the custody of the director of adult corrections for a period of ten years on count I and two years for count IV, in the first felony matter, and for five years on the second felony for count I. The terms will run concurrent for a total of ten years. While you are incarcerated, you’ll have to continue on with your mental health counseling, submit to DNA profiling. Restitution will be set, and there will be a Zoom hearing on that for a date that I have to yet determine. I will suspend all fines and suspend Category “B” restitution as a result of the incarceration. I deem this to be an extremely serious event 4 that warrants a very serious punishment; henceforth, the reason I’m doing what I’m doing. The court added in its written sentencing order that it based the sentence on the need to protect society and rehabilitate Dockum, the recommendations of the defendant, the presentence investigative report (PSI), and Dockum’s prior record. Now, Dockum appeals his sentence, arguing the court abused its discretion when it allegedly relied on unadmitted conduct in the victim impact statement and when it “only considered the nature of the offenses” in sending him to prison. STANDARD OF REVIEW Because the prison sentence imposed by the district court was within the statutory limits, it “is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor.” State v. Damme, 944 N.W.2d 98, 105–06 (Iowa 2020) (citation omitted). “We will not reverse a sentence unless there is ‘an abuse of discretion or some defect in the sentencing procedure.’” Id. at 103 (citation omitted). “A district court abuses its discretion when it exercises its discretion on grounds clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” State v. Duffield, 16 N.W.3d 298, 302 (Iowa 2025) (citation omitted). DISCUSSION I. Victim Impact Statement Dockum claims the court improperly relied on unproven conduct in the victim impact statement when sentencing him to prison. During sentencing, we rely on courts to “filter out improper or irrelevant evidence” from victim impact statements, which are by their nature “unabridged expression[s] of the impact of the offense.” State v. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d 756, 5 761, 764 (Iowa 1998). “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). The defendant bears the burden to affirmatively show that the sentencing court relied on improper factors or clearly untenable grounds. Sailer, 587 N.W.2d at 759, 762. According to Dockum, the following portions of the victim impact statement were improperly considered during sentencing: “The allegation of a second forged signature, the Connecticut lawsuit, attorney’s fees, and the new allegation of falsifying records with the State of Iowa are unproven facts not present in the minutes of testimony.” For proof that the court relied on these facts, Dockum relies on the following statement by the sentencing court: “As you heard [the victim], he has now incurred additional cost and expenses and the frustration of time to have to pull his business out of all of the mess that you have created.” While this statement references the difficulties expressed in the victim impact statement, it falls short of affirmatively showing the sentencing court relied on an unproven ground or improper factor since the minutes of testimony—which Dockum permitted the court to rely on as a factual basis for his guilty plea—also mention the business’s struggles with collection calls and letters from creditors resulting from Dockum’s conduct. At no point did the court specifically mention the number of forged signatures, the Connecticut lawsuit, the falsified state documents, or the attorney fees which Dockum claims the court considered. The court merely referenced the frustration and difficulties the company encountered from Dockum’s crimes, all of which was contained in the minutes of testimony. Absent some affirmative proof that the court considered the allegedly improper statements, Dockum’s claim fails. 6 II. Sentencing Factors Next, Dockum claims the court failed to properly consider all factors during sentencing and instead sentenced Dockum solely on the nature of his crimes. Specifically, Dockum claims the court ignored his “mental health struggles, his family support, his stellar employment history following the events underlying the offenses, his spotless pre-trial performance on probation, his lack of criminal history, or the PSI’s probation recommendation.” But the fact that a different allocation of weight to pertinent factors may have supported a different sentencing outcome is no basis for reversal. See State v. Luke, 4 N.W.3d 450, 455 (Iowa 2024). Instead, “the district court’s authority to weigh the competing factors to reach a sentencing decision is the essence of the discretion given to a sentencing judge.” State v. Phillips, 996 N.W.2d 419, 422 (Iowa Ct. App. 2023). To support his position, Dockum references the court’s statement that “I deem this to be an extremely serious event that warrants a very serious punishment; henceforth, the reason I’m doing what I’m doing.” But this is only one sentence of the court’s sentencing discussion. Here, as stated on the record and in the written sentencing order, the court considered the nature of the offenses, the need to protect society and rehabilitate Dockum, the recommendations of the PSI, the letters of support Dockum submitted, and Dockum’s prior record when fashioning its sentence. Given the list of considerations, the court properly considered all the relevant factors and found the nature of the crime to be of particular weight during sentencing. The court’s emphasis on the nature of the offenses in its reasoning does not invalidate the sentence. As we have repeatedly recognized, the sentencing court “enjoys the latitude to place greater importance on one sentencing consideration over others.” State v. Latcham, 7 No. 10-1262, 2011 WL 1138569, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2011). And while the court did not specifically mention Dockum’s mental-health struggles or his pre-sentencing behavior, sentencing courts are not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged by a defendant.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Dockum is simply asking us to substitute the decision of the sentencing court with our own, which we cannot do. See State v. McCalley, 972 N.W.2d 672, 677 (Iowa 2022). While Dockum clearly would have weighed the factors differently, the “test for whether a sentencing court abused its discretion is not whether we might have weighed the various factors differently, but whether the sentence was based on unreasonable or untenable grounds.” State v. Rasmussen, 7 N.W.3d 357, 364–65 (Iowa 2024) (cleaned up). Here, the court properly exercised the discretion granted to all sentencing courts when it placed greater weight on aggravating factors than mitigating factors. We cannot consider this an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, Dockum’s challenge fails, and we affirm the court’s sentence. AFFIRMED. 8