The Iowa Court of Appeals has upheld the sentence of Matthew William Hoffman, who pleaded guilty to domestic abuse assault impeding airflow causing bodily injury. The court's ruling, filed on November 4, 2026, affects Hoffman and highlights the judicial process surrounding domestic violence cases in Iowa.

Hoffman was sentenced to a prison term not to exceed five years, which was suspended, followed by two years of probation. He challenged the sentence on several grounds, asserting that the district court failed to provide adequate reasons for the sentence, did not allow his attorney to speak on his behalf, and improperly weighed the sentencing factors.

Background Facts and Proceedings

The case began when Hoffman was charged with two counts of domestic abuse assault after an incident on May 31, 2025, where he strangled his intimate partner. The first count was a class “D” felony, while the second count was for a second offense of domestic abuse assault.

Before the trial commenced, Hoffman entered a plea agreement with the State. He agreed to plead guilty to the first count, and in exchange, the State dismissed the second count. Both parties recommended a deferred judgment with two years of probation. However, the district court was not bound by this agreement and had the discretion to impose a different sentence.

During the sentencing discussion, the court confirmed that Hoffman had read and understood the guilty plea and asked if he wanted to proceed. After reviewing the plea agreement, the court heard the State's recommendation for a deferred judgment, which was based on Hoffman's lack of recent criminal history and completion of anger management and therapy. However, the court ultimately decided against the deferred judgment, citing Hoffman's prior domestic assault conviction.

The Ruling

The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, stating that the court had provided sufficient reasons for the sentence imposed. Judge Chicchelly noted, "The district court provided adequate reasons for the sentence imposed." The court found that Hoffman had waived his right to an oral explanation for the sentence when he agreed to the plea deal.

Although Hoffman argued that the district court's oral explanation was inadequate and contradicted by the written sentencing order, the court found that the written order complemented the oral explanation. The court noted that the district court had considered various factors, including the nature of the crime and the need to protect the public.

Additionally, the court addressed Hoffman's claim that his attorney was not given the opportunity to speak before sentencing. The court ruled that Hoffman's waiver of a sentencing hearing in his plea agreement also waived his right to have his attorney present arguments on his behalf.

Impact

This ruling underscores the importance of the plea agreement process and the discretion courts have in sentencing, particularly in domestic violence cases. It highlights that defendants may waive certain rights during the plea process, which can affect their ability to challenge sentencing decisions later. The court's decision also reinforces the idea that a court's written order can provide additional context and reasoning for a sentence, even if not all factors are discussed during the oral proceedings.

Going forward, this case may serve as a reference for similar cases involving domestic violence and the application of sentencing guidelines. It emphasizes the need for defendants to understand the implications of their plea agreements and the potential consequences of waiving their rights.

What's Next

Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Hoffman plans to appeal the ruling further. There is no indication of any related cases pending at this time.