State of Iowa v. Jay Salge, 20-1263

Defendant Jay Salge pleaded guilty to 58 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (Iowa Code §§ 728.1(7), 728.12(3)) for possession of images depicting 58 different infants/prepubescent children in prohibited sexual acts (including bestiality and forcible sexual acts).
Plea agreement left sentencing open; the State agreed not to file additional charges or seek federal prosecution.
PSI and record: Salge was 43, on SSDI, with a long history of mental-health treatment and institutionalization; his father described a “marginally retarded IQ,” but the record did not definitively establish intellectual disability. He had prior misdemeanor convictions including multiple assaults.
The district court imposed consecutive two-year sentences per count (totaling a 116-year term) plus an additional ten-year special sentence; there was no mandatory minimum and Salge is immediately parole-eligible and earns time credits.
Salge appealed, arguing the aggregate sentence is grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment and Iowa Constitution) and that the district court abused its sentencing discretion by failing to give adequate reasons for consecutive sentences.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Salge)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the consecutive 116-year aggregate sentence is grossly disproportionate (Eighth Amendment & Iowa Const.)	The aggregate term is a de facto life sentence and grossly disproportionate given his intellectual disability and personal culpability.	A 2-year statutory term per image is constitutional; aggregation does not make a constitutional sentence unconstitutional; no mandatory minimum, immediate parole eligibility, and earned-time reduce severity.	Court rejected the constitutional challenge — threshold gross‑disproportionality not met; aggregate consecutive terms permissible; not a de facto life sentence.
Whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion or failed to state adequate reasons for consecutive sentences	Court did not adequately explain why sentences were consecutive; statements about disability and treatment should have weighed against lengthy incarceration.	Court gave multiple, specific sentencing rationales (offender characteristics, volume and depravity of images, community protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, prior record) sufficient for appellate review.	Court found no abuse of discretion; the record contains adequate, non‑tenable reasons supporting consecutive sentences.

Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) (Eighth Amendment analysis of juvenile death penalty and "evolving standards of decency")
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) (bars life without parole for juveniles for nonhomicide offenses; discusses juvenile culpability differences)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (limits mandatory life without parole for juveniles; emphasizes youth characteristics)
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (death penalty unconstitutional for intellectually disabled but intellectual disability does not bar trial and punishment)
State v. Harrison, 914 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2018) (articulates three‑step gross‑disproportionality test under Iowa and U.S. Constitutions)
State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41 (Iowa 2013) (cruel and unusual punishment precedent referenced in proportionality context)
State v. August, 589 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 1999) (consecutive lengthy sentences do not necessarily violate Eighth Amendment)
State v. Lara, 580 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa 1998) (sentence not cruel and unusual simply because defendant must serve entire term)
State v. Jones, 298 N.W.2d 296 (Iowa 1980) (consecutive sentences upheld against Eighth Amendment challenge)
State v. Formaro, 638 N.W.2d 720 (Iowa 2002) (standard of review: sentencing decisions entitled to strong presumption and reviewed for abuse of discretion)