State of Iowa v. Tanner Allan Weitzel

── State of Iowa v. Tanner Allan Weitzel ── Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA _______________ No. 25-1346 Filed May 13, 2026 _______________ State of Iowa, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Tanner Allan Weitzel, Defendant–Appellant. _______________ Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Boone County, The Honorable Ashley Sparks, Judge. _______________ AFFIRMED _______________ Martha J. Lucey, State Appellate Defender, and Maria Ruhtenberg, Assistant Appellate Defender, attorneys for appellant. Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joshua Henry, Assistant Attorney General, attorneys for appellee. _______________ Considered without oral argument by Schumacher, P.J., Ahlers, J., and Bower, S.J. Opinion by Schumacher, P.J. 1 SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge. Tanner Weitzel appeals his sentence following a guilty plea to robbery in the first degree in violation of Iowa Code sections 711.1(1) and 711.2 (2025), alleging the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years with a mandatory term of eight years. Upon our review, we affirm. I. Background Facts & Proceedings Weitzel was charged with first-degree robbery, second-degree kidnapping, and conspiracy to commit a forcible felony following an incident where he and accomplices assaulted an individual while armed with a firearm, intending to commit a theft. At the time of the incident, Weitzel was seventeen years and eight months old. Weitzel entered into a plea agreement with the State wherein he agreed to plead guilty to first-degree robbery in exchange for the State’s dismissal of the two remaining counts. The district court accepted Weitzel’s plea and ordered the preparation of a presentence investigation (PSI). The PSI recommended incarceration. Prior to sentencing, Weitzel was evaluated by separate psychologists, one hired by the State and one hired by the defense. Both psychologists testified at the sentencing hearing. The State’s psychologist, Dr. Lestina, recommended incarceration followed by probation and inpatient substance- use treatment. The defense psychologist, Dr. Nesbit, recommended probation and participation in a community treatment program. Following a detailed explanation of relevant sentencing factors, the district court sentenced Weitzel to an indeterminate term of incarceration not to exceed twenty-five years, with a mandatory minimum of eight years of 2 incarceration prior to Weitzel being eligible for parole. Weitzel appeals his sentence. II. Analysis Weitzel’s appeal focuses on his age at the time of the commitment of the offense and the district court’s application of the specialized standards the court uses when sentencing a juvenile offender. Weitzel asserts the district court abused its discretion when utilizing the required Lyle factors because it found some of the factors non-mitigating. See State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 404 n.10 (Iowa 2014). The State counters that while the court is required to consider the Lyle factors, it is not mandatory to treat them as mitigating. We review sentencing challenges for an abuse of discretion. State v. Gordon, 998 N.W.2d 859, 862 (Iowa 2023). A sentencing court abuses its discretion when it relies on inappropriate factors or “when the sentence is based on grounds that were clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Id. “We presume that a sentence within the statutory limits is valid . . . .” Id. When sentencing a juvenile, the court may abuse its discretion “w