State of Iowa v. Kendall Chavez Johnson
2016 Iowa App. LEXIS 984
Iowa Ct. App.2016Background
- Kendall Johnson was charged in one information with multiple offenses; he pleaded guilty to second-degree burglary and assault while displaying a dangerous weapon in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts.
- At sentencing the court imposed prison terms, fines, restitution, surcharges, and ordered payment of court costs; the written sentencing order also stated dismissed counts were dismissed "with costs assessed to [Johnson]."
- The plea agreement was silent regarding assessment of court costs for dismissed counts; the prosecutor and defense agreed at sentencing there was no agreement to assess costs beyond convicted counts.
- The clerk’s combined docket shortly after sentencing showed $210–$250 in court costs and $250 in court-appointed attorney fees that were not clearly attributable to dismissed counts.
- Johnson appealed, arguing (1) the court illegally assessed court costs for dismissed counts and (2) the court failed to determine his ability to pay before imposing restitution-related obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court costs for dismissed counts may be assessed when plea agreement is silent | State: costs were erroneously assessed in sentencing order and should be corrected | Johnson: court illegally assessed costs for dismissed counts; plea silence forbids such costs | Court: vacated the portion assessing costs for dismissed counts and remanded for corrected order (but found the assessed total costs were attributable to convicted counts) |
| Whether court must determine ability to pay before ordering restitution for court costs and court-appointed counsel fees | State: issue not directly appealable; restitution plan was part of sentence | Johnson: court ordered fines, costs, surcharges, and attorney fees without finding ability to pay | Court: vacated portion ordering court costs and remanded for determination of Johnson’s reasonable ability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Seats, 865 N.W.2d 545 (Iowa 2015) (standard of review for sentencing legality challenges)
- State v. Watson, 795 N.W.2d 94 (Iowa Ct. App. 2011) (restitution is statutory)
- Petrie v. State, 478 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1991) (fees not clearly associated with a single charge should be apportioned)
- Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774 (Iowa 2000) (court must determine ability to pay before ordering restitution under Iowa Code § 910.2)
- State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647 (Iowa 1987) (defendant bears burden to show court failed to exercise discretion in restitution rulings)
- State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) (distinguishes restitution to victims from restitution obligations subject to ability-to-pay review)
- State v. Wagner, 484 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992) (restitution to victims generally ordered without regard to defendant’s ability to pay)
- State v. Kaelin, 362 N.W.2d 526 (Iowa 1985) (court-appointed attorney fees subject to defendant’s reasonable ability to pay)