discretionary standard in Iowa

2026But the court “enjoys the latitude to place greater importance on one sentencing consideration over others.” State v. Latcham, No. 10-1262, 2011 WL 1138569 , at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 30, 2011); accord State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (recognizing that the “right of an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence inheres in the discretionary standard”).

2026While the district court may have afforded more weight to Griffin’s criminal history and the nature of the offense, it is “[t]he right of an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence inheres in the discretionary standard.” State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983).

2025And the court was not “required to specifically acknowledge each claim of mitigation urged” by Moyle. 17 State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

2018A court’s “failure to acknowledge a 6 particular sentencing circumstance does not necessarily mean it was not considered.” State v. Boltz, 542 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995).

2024And that discretion is given great deference, so it is not this court’s role “to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 725 (Iowa 2002).

2024Information concerning Latham’s history of substance use and sobriety was included in the PSI, and “[a] court has a right to rely on the information in the PSI when the defendant fails to object to the information contained in the PSI.” State v. Gordon, 921 N.W.2d 19, 24 (Iowa 2018).

2024The court is given wide discretion “based on the unique circumstances of each case and the best interests of the child, whether to apply the factors in this section to save the parent-child relationship.” In re A.M., 843 N.W.2d 100, 113 (Iowa 2014) (citation omitted).

2023See Iowa Code § 908.11 (4) (2022); see also State v. Keutla, 798 N.W.2d 731 , 733–34 (Iowa 2011) (holding that, after a probation violation, the district court may choose one of the four options in section 908.11(4): “(1) continue probation with or without altering the terms; (2) continue probation, but hold the defendant in contempt and impose a jail term; (3) continue probation and place the defendant in a violator facility; or (4) revoke probation and impose a sentence for the original conviction”). 5 Because the district court chose an option properly before it and Storm has not shown the

2015See D.W., 791 N.W.2d at 707 .

2015See State v. Hopkins, 860 N.W.2d 550, 555 (Iowa 2015) (“[A] court makes each sentencing decision on an individual basis and seeks to fit the particular person affected.”); State v. Wright, 340 N.W.2d 590, 593 (Iowa 1983) (holding “right of an individual judge to balance the relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence inheres in the discretionary standard”).