State Court of Appeals confirms prison sentence in Charles City sex abuse case

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

An Elma man who pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual abuse and was sentenced to 10 years in prison has had his sentence upheld by the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Randy Lee Nibaur, now age 62, was arrested and charged in January 2023 with sexual abuse in the second degree, a Class B Felony, for allegedly having sexual contact several times with a girl that he was babysitting in Charles City from November 2018 to August 2021 while the girl was age 2 to 4.

Nibaur pleaded guilty in an Alford plea to the reduced charge of sexual abuse in the third degree, a Class C felony.

An Alford plea means the defendant agrees that the prosecution has enough evidence to likely convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and he will accept sentencing, but he does not admit guilt. The criminal record impact is the same as pleading guilty, and can result in the same sentences.

Judge DeDra Schroeder sentenced Nibaur to an indeterminate prison term not to exceed 10 years, and ordered him to pay a $1,370 fine plus 15% crime services surcharge and other fees and penalties.

Schroeder also ordered that Nibaur serve Iowa’s Special Sentence for sexual crimes, meaning Nibaur will be under the supervision of the Iowa Department of Correctional Services for the rest of his life after he is released from prison. He must also register on the Iowa Sexual Offender Registry.

Shortly after he was sentenced, Nibaur filed notice that he was appealing the final judgment and the sentencing, “and all adverse rulings therein.”

“Nibaur contends his conviction should be reversed because (1) no factual basis exists for his guilty plea; and (2) he did not knowingly plead guilty. Lastly, he argues the district court abused its discretion by sentencing him to a prison term,” according to the appeals court ruling.

Nibaur argued that the Iowa Code section for the crime with which he was charged requires that the victim be 14 or 15 years old, which was not the case, therefore he could not be found guilty of that charge.

The appeals court ruled that Nibaur should have made that argument by filing a motion for arrest of judgment with the district court, after being advised by the court of his right to do so. Having failed to do so, the Court of Appeals lacks the authority to deal with that part of his argument.

Similarly, the court ruled, by not filing a motion in arrest of judgment with the district court, the appeals court cannot rule on his argument that he did not understand the consequences of pleading guilty.

At the plea hearing held Oct. 30, Schroeder told Nibaur, “If Defendant wishes to challenge the adequacy of the plea proceedings, a written Motion in Arrest of Judgment must be filed with the Clerk of Court no later than 45 days from today’s date, but in any case not later than five days before the date set for sentencing. Failure to challenge the adequacy of a guilty plea proceeding by Motion in Arrest of Judgment shall preclude Defendant’s right to assert such challenge on appeal.”

Regarding Nibaur’s argument that Judge Schroeder abused her discretion by sentencing him to jail, the appeals court ruled that district court judges have “wide latitude” in reaching sentencing determination, and that Schroeder considered the nature of the offense, attending circumstances, Nibaur’s age, character and propensity, and chances of reform.

“We think it is clear the district court also considered mitigating factors,” the appeal court decision says.

“That the district court may have been justified in granting a suspended sentence does not mean it abused its discretion by imposing a sentence of incarceration,” the opinion says.

“We affirm Nibaur’s conviction, finding we lack authority to consider his challenges to his guilty plea. Additionally, we find the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence of incarceration,” the Court of Appeals ruling concludes.