Alf Freddy Clark, Applicant-Appellant v. State of Iowa, 15-1280

Alf Clark was convicted in 2000 and sentenced to concurrent prison terms; the sentencing order required him to reimburse attorney fees to the extent he was reasonably able to pay.
Supplemental restitution orders (2000–2002) required payments of 20% of institutional account credits and increased attorney-fee amounts; Clark paid under that plan for ~15 years.
In December 2014 Clark filed motions (in the criminal case and in an existing PCR matter) challenging restitution, seeking an evidentiary hearing and return of funds.
A restitution hearing occurred April 27, 2015; the district court denied Clark’s motions in July 2015 (PCR) and May 2016 (criminal), finding he had a reasonable ability to pay and the payment plan (20% of account credits) was not excessive.
Clark appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by finding he had a reasonable ability to pay while incarcerated, (2) the restitution order lacked an explicit on-the-record finding of ability to pay (entitling him to return of funds), and (3) excessive amounts were being withheld under civil-judgment enforcement standards.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clark has a reasonable ability to pay restitution	Clark: incarceration and low institutional wages show no reasonable ability to pay	State: statute authorizes payroll deductions; Clark had notice, a payment plan tied to 20% of account credits, and paid for 15 years	Court: No abuse of discretion; ability assessed by current installment ability, not total balance; Clark failed to prove inability to pay
Whether absence of an explicit on-the-record finding of ability to pay invalidates order and requires return of funds	Clark: lack of an explicit finding requires invalidation and return of all payments	State: precedent permits remand for consideration of ability to pay; Clark cites no authority for ordering return of funds	Court: Denied; no authority for full return; court had afforded a hearing and reconsideration and did not err
Whether amounts withheld were excessive under civil-judgment enforcement standards	Clark: amounts withheld from account were excessive under civil standards	State: issue was not presented/ruled below	Court: Not preserved for appellate review; omitted from decision
Whether timing/tardiness of supplemental restitution orders warrants relief	Clark: late entry of supplemental orders and incarceration make them unfair	State: Timeliness not a basis if defendant had notice and chance to be heard	Court: Timing alone insufficient; notice and opportunity to challenge satisfy fairness

State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa Ct. App.) (defendant bears burden to show court failed to exercise or abused discretion about ability to pay)
State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1987) (reasonableness for incarcerated defendants focuses on ability to pay current installments)
State v. Hagen, 840 N.W.2d 140 (Iowa 2013) (standard of review for restitution orders: findings must have substantial evidentiary support and law be properly applied)
State v. Bonstetter, 637 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 2001) (framework for reviewing restitution orders)
State v. Blank, 570 N.W.2d 924 (Iowa 1997) (defendant bears burden when challenging restitution)