State of Iowa v. Jamie Dwayne Luebs

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-0355
Filed January 28, 2026
_______________

State of Iowa,
Plaintiff–Appellee,
v.
Jamie Dwayne Luebs,
Defendant–Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Warren County,
The Honorable John D. Lloyd, Judge.
_______________

APPEAL DISMISSED
_______________

John C. Heinicke of Kragnes & Associates, P.C., West Des Moines,
attorney for appellant.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Joseph D. Ferrentino, Assistant
Attorney General, attorneys for appellee.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Greer, P.J., and Schumacher and Ahlers, JJ.
Opinion by Greer, P.J.

1
GREER, Presiding Judge.

Jamie Luebs asserts the sentencing court abused its discretion by
failing to give sufficient reasons for imposing a nine-year consecutive
sentence. The State disagrees and points to Luebs’s plea agreement where
he agreed he would serve prison time not to exceed five years for the
operating while intoxicated (OWI) charge, two years for the driving while
barred charge, and two years for the child endangerment charge, with the
sentences to be served consecutively, and the fact that the sentencing court
imposed this same sentence.1 The State contends we do not have jurisdiction
to consider this appeal. We agree.

Because the sentencing court imposed the sentence agreed to in the
plea agreement and the case does not involve a class “A” felony, there is not
“good cause” to consider this appeal. State v. Cart, No. 23-1338, 2025
WL 854775, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2025) (recognizing that the
question remains unanswered by our supreme court, 2 but collecting cases
from this court that have “routinely declined to find good cause”); see also
State v. Taylor, No. 24-1320, 2025 WL 1322767, at *1 (Iowa Ct. App. May 7,
2025) (“In situations such as this one, in which the defendant does not allege
a procedural error and appeals a sentence that conforms with the plea
agreement, we have continually determined the defendant failed to establish
good cause.”). And, Luebs admitted that he “received the exact sentence on

Charges for two other counts of child endangerment and a habitual-offender
1

enhancement were dismissed as a part of the plea agreement.
2
“We save for another day the question of whether good cause exists to solely
appeal an agreed sentence without an accompanying sentencing error outside the scope
of the plea agreement.” State v. Wilbourn, 974 N.W.2d 58, 66 (Iowa 2022).

2
February 25, 2025, that matched the terms and conditions when he signed
the guilty plea on January 6, 2025, down to an incorrect fine of $1,025.00
instead of a fine of $3,175.00 for Count I, OWI-3rd.”

Luebs received the agreed-upon sentence and raised no error related
to the plea agreement. Therefore, under our case law, because Luebs has not
established good cause to appeal pursuant to Iowa Code
section 814.6(1)(a)(3) (2025), we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

3