State of Iowa v. Joshua Todd Busch

── State of Iowa v. Joshua Todd Busch ── Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1303 Filed April 29, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Joshua Todd Busch, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, The Honorable Scott D. Rosenberg, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Debra S. De Jong of De Jong Law Firm, P.C., Orange City, attorney for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua Henry, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Tabor, C.J., and Chicchelly and Sandy, JJ. Opinion by Chicchelly, J. 1 CHICCHELLY, Judge. Joshua Busch appeals his sentence for third-offense possession of a controlled substance.1 He argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to explain its reasoning for imposing consecutive sentences. Upon our review, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirm Busch’s sentences. BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Busch pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance as a third or subsequent offense, a class “D” felony in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(5). When he committed that offense, Busch was on probation in two separate matters. The State and Busch reached a plea agreement where the parties would jointly recommend a five-year prison term, and they would be allowed to argue to the district court whether the prison term should be served consecutively or concurrently with the two probation matters. The parties also bargained for the dismissal of another simple misdemeanor case Busch was facing. At the sentencing hearing, Busch requested the district court grant him an unsuccessful discharge on one of his probationary sentences and run the other probation matter concurrent to the sentence imposed in the active case. Busch noted his struggles with substance use, medical diagnoses, and his prior performance on probation, and he accepted responsibility for his actions during his allocution. The State argued for consecutive sentences, noting several probation violation reports, Busch’s criminal history, and the 1 As a preliminary matter, the right of appeal is limited for convictions reached pursuant to a plea agreement. See Iowa Code § 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2025). We find there is good cause for appeal because Busch is challenging his discretionary sentences rather than the guilty plea. See State v. Boldon, 954 N.W.2d 62, 69 (Iowa 2021). 2 seriousness of the offense for which Busch was being sentenced. The district court agreed with the State and sentenced Busch to a five-year indeterminate prison term for possession of a controlled substance. And the court ordered that sentence to be served consecutive to Busch’s two pending probation matters. Busch appeals. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a district court’s discretionary sentencing decisions for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Gordon, 998 N.W.2d 859, 862 (Iowa 2023). The district court’s decision “to impose a particular sentence within the statutory limits is cloaked with a strong presumption in its favor.” State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720, 724 (Iowa 2002). And “our task on appeal is not to second guess the decision made by the district court, but to determine if it was unreasonable or based on untenable grounds.” Id. at 725. DISCUSSION Busch argues